RAVINDER SINGH Vs. GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners appeared in B.A./B.Sc. Part-II Examination conducted by Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar (for short the 'University'), held in April/May, 1991. The result of the said examination was declared on Aug. 27, 1991. However, the result of the petitioners was not declared and in the University gazette it was shown as "R.L.O.R." meaning thereby, "result later because of some other reasons." It seems that after the examination was over the University received some complaints with the allegations that there was mass copying in the centre, consequently, the University should not declare the result and should get the answer sheets of all the examinees compared. The University took notice of the complaint and got compared the answer sheets of the examinees in subject of Mathematics Paper-I. The extract of the report of the subject-expert who examined the answer sheets of the examinees is appendix to Annexure P-1. The subject-expert concluded that 45 candidates copied question No. 1(c) of Mathematics Paper-I from the incriminating material. The only mistake committed by the candidates and as pointed out by the subject-expert is that while attempting question No. 1(c), the candidates at one stage put 't' whereas in fact it should have been put as 't2'. The University ultimately issued notice to the examinees to appear before the Unfair Means Committee as their attempt in the answer sheets was found tallying with the incriminating material submitted to the University along with the complaint. An extract of the report of the subject-expert was sent along with the notice requiring the petitioners to appear before the Committee. All the petitioners contended that they never used unfair means during the course of examination nor did they get any help from the alleged incriminating material. Their submission was that they had attempted the questions in the answer sheets of their own. This submission of the petitioners did not find favour with the Unfair Means Committee and consequently, all of them were debarred from appearing in any University examination for a period of two years by order Annexure P-3. Hence, this writ petition seeking quashment of the aforesaid order.

(2.) As already noticed, the case of the petitioners is that they were not found copying by the supervisory staff during the course of examination and no incriminating material was recovered from their possession for which they could be held liable for disqualification. The University taking a view that the answer sheets of the examinees tallied with the incriminating material received with the complaint, came to the conclusion that 45 candidates out of a total of 257 candidates had copied solution to questions No. 1(c) from the incriminating material. After affording an opportunity of being heard, 45 candidates were disqualified under Ordinance 10(j) read with Ordinances 11 and 13 of the Guru Nanak Dev University Calendar Volume II (1991), from appearing in any University examination for a period of two years. Ordinance 10(j) of the University Calendar reads as under : "Part-II - Offences and Punishment" 10. The use of unfair means in, or in relation to; the examination shall include the following acts or omissions on the part of the candidates, viz : xxx xxx xxx xxx

(3.) A Division Bench of this Court in a similar situation in Civil Writ Petition No. 2450 of 1992 (Harjinder Singh and another Vs. Guru Nanak Dev University and another, 1992(2) SCT 485 P&H) decided on May 21, 1992, held that as for clause (j) of Ordinance 10 is concerned, there was no material before the Unfair Means Committee that the candidates received any help for answering the question from any source in any manner, inside or outside the examination hall. It further concluded that merely because the answers to some questions in the answer sheets tallied with some material, may be from a book paper or note, will not show that the candidates had received help from inside or outside the examination hall. Under these circumstances it was held that clause (j) of Ordinance 10 supra was not attracted in such cases unless there was some material before the Unfair Means Committee to give a finding on the points covered by Ordinance 10(j) and it would be only thereafter that Ordinance 13 will come into play.