VINAY SHARMA Vs. PUNJABI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to a resolution dated November 22, 1991 passed in the meeting of the Syndicate of the Punjabi University, Patiala whereby the petitioner-a student of 2nd Professional MBBS course was debarred from appearing in the University Examinations for two years.

(2.) THE facts in short as alleged are that the petitioner joined MBBS Course in Government Medical College, Patiala (for short the college) in the year 1987. After passing his 1st Professional MBBS Examination he appeared in the 2nd Professional MBBS Examination conducted by the Punjabi University under Roll NO. 738 in December, 1990. On declaration of result the petitioner got 're-appear' in the paper of Pathology. He applied for re-checking of papers A and B of the said subject by depositing the requisite fee. He received a notice dated April 18, 1991 (true translation Annexure P-1) from the University, The charge as pointed out in the said notice was as under:

(3.) THE allegations as made by the petitioner have been denied by filing a written statement. The case of the respondent-University is that the petitioner along with four to five other boys came to the office for re-checking of his answer books and added the figure of + 3 to the marks already awarded by the examiner against Question No. 3 appearing at page 1 of the answer book and on the basis thereof, he was served a notice, Annexure P-1, as to why he be not punished under Ordinance 38 relating to unfair means, having tampered with the answer book by adding three marks to the marks already awarded by the examiner. The Syndiacte inexercise of its power under Ordinance 38 of the Punjabi University Calender, Vol. II, for the year 1987 and on the basis of evidence before, it came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of using unfair means and thus, was rightly disqualified for two years from appearing in any University examination. It is further averred that he was given full opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken and was heard by the committee appointed by the Syndicate.