MANISHA SHARMA Vs. GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MANINSHA Sharma, through present petition filed by her under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash orders, Annexure P-6, P-9 and P-11 vide which she was disqualified from appearing in any examination of the Guru Nanak Dev University for a period of two years under ordinance 10 (a) read with Ordinance 11 of the Guru Nanak Dev University Calendar, Volume II, Part B, 1991. The relief asked for in the writ, as mentioned above, flows from the following facts:

(2.) IT is pleaded that petitioner has brilliant academic record. She secured 612 marks out of 800 in the Middle Standard examination in March, 1985 and, thus, got 76. 5% marks. In the matriculation examination held in March, 1987 by the Punjab School Education Board, she obtained 644 marks out of 800 getting first division with distinction by scoring 80. 5%. She secured 302 marks out of 450 in her Senior Secondary Examination conducted in April 1988 and improved her performance in the + 2 examination conducted by the University. Alongwith the letter aforesaid, she also received the decision rendered by the Standing Committee on March 17, 1993. She preferred an appeal to the Vice Chancellor pleading therein that the Standing Committee never recorded categorical finding that her answer book showed that she had received any help from any source and, therefore, in the absence of such finding, she could not be disqualified. The appeal was, however, dismissed summarily by a non-speaking order dated August 3, 1993 (Annexure P-11 ). It is this decision of the standing committee confirmed by the Vice Chancellor which has been styled to be arbitrary, illegal and unjust as also against the mandatory provisions of the Guru Nanak Dev University Calendar.

(3.) MR. Khehar, learned counsel for the petitioner has basically raised two issues. The first contention of the learned counsel is that in accordance with Clause-9 of Chapter XII of the GND University Calendar, Part-II, if during the University examination, a candidate was found having in his possession or accessible to him papers, books, notes or other material, which even did not relate to the subject of the examination of the day and which could not possibly be of any assistance to him, no action shall be taken against him. The Superintendent shall nevertheless promptly report the case to the Registrar and all the papers seized shall be sent alongwith the report. The incriminating material found in possession of petitioner, it is stated, did not relate to the questions that were to be answered and set out in the paper of Anatomy when she was attempting the said paper. With a view to substantiate the contention, noticed above, Mr. Khehar argues that the word 'and' immediately after the word 'day' mentioned in Clause 9 should be read as 'or'. If word 'and' is read as 'or' then in that case since petitioner could not possibly take any assistance from the material found from her possession, no action could have been taken against her. Clause-9 of Chapter XII of the GND University Calendar Part-II runs as follows:" if during a University examination, a candidate is found having in his possession or accessible to him papers, books, notes or other material, which do not relate to the subject of the examination of the day and which could not possibly be of any assistance to him, no action shall be taken against him. The Superintendent shall nevertheless promptly report the case to the Registrar and all the papers seized shall be sent alongwith the report. " It is submitted that if papers, books, notes or other material do not relate to the subject of the examination of the day, the same would necessarily be of no assistance and, therefore, if word 'and' is not read as 'or' then the words 'which could not possibly be of any assistance to him would be surplusage. The argument appears to be attractive but when examined in the context of. the intention underlying the clause, the same recedes from its prima facie attractiveness. Obviously, papers, books, notes or other material which do not relate to the subject of the examination at all, is of no meaning and no one for simply carrying such books, papers, notes or other material comes under any of the mischives styling his act to be falling under unfair means. However, to make it doubly sure that such material is of no help to a student, it has further been provided that such papers, books, notes or other material should be such, which can not possibly provide any assistance to the student. Further, it is not unknown that students intending to use unfair means would not know what exactly would be the questions that they shall have to answer in the examination hall. They would carry with them material pertaining to important questions for which there is high expectation that the same would be set out in the question paper. If the material taken by them does not relate to the questions put, it cannot be that the student did not indulge in unfair means. The first contention of learned counsel has, thus, to be repelled.