GUGAN SINGH Vs. THE REGISTRAR, PUNJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Gugan Singh, appeared in B.A. Part III examination of Three -year -Degree Course conducted by the Punjab University, Chandigarh, at Vaish College, Rohtak Centre, under roll No. 249518. The examination was held in April 1973 and the result was declared on 3rd July 1973. Accordingly to this result, the petitioner was placed in compartment and had to appear again in some papers. Subsequently by notice Annexure A dated 9th August, 1973 the petitioner was informed that it had been reported that he had used unfair means during the course of the examination. He was called to appear at Rohtak on 17th August 1973 to show cause why action be not taken under regulation 7 of the Regulations for Examinations contained in the Punjab University Chandigarh Calendar 1972 (Vol. II). By this notice the petitioner was told that he would be furnished with a questionnaire approved by the Standing Committee. Copy of the report of the examiner on the basis of which the notice had been issued was also sent along with this notice. It appears that on receipt of this notice the petitioner appeared before the Deputy Registrar (Unfair Means) and replied to the questionnaire (Annexure B to the petition). In this reply he denied having copied the answer to question No. 4 of English paper B. He asserted that the answer given by him did not tally with the answer of the candidate bearing roll No. 249519. The material was then placed before the Unfair Means Committee of the Punjab University which by order dated 11th September 1973 disqualified the petitioner for a period of two years under regulation 7. This order was passed on the basis of the finding that the answer to question No. 4 of the petitioner tallied word for word with the answer of this question given by the candidate bearing roll No. 249519. From this it was inferred that the two candidates had copied from each other or from a common source, as the answer to the translation question could not normally be identical in words. After the passing of this order the petitioner sent his admission form for the B. A. Part 111 examination but he was informed by Annexure D that he was not eligible. The petitioner then approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 for quashing the order of the Standing Committee of Unfair Means and the order Annexure D.

(2.) THE petition was contested on behalf of the respondent and in the affidavit of the Registrar it was stated that the answer book of the petitioner was compared with that of the other candidates mentioned in the notice and that it was found that the answer to question No. 4 of English paper B which related to the translation of a given passage from vernacular to English was identical with that of the candidate bearing roll No. 249519. Alongwith this reply the statement of the petitioner which he had made before the Unfair Means Committee was also filed as Annexure RI. In this statement the (sic) had admitted that the answer to question No. 4 talied with that of the candidate bearing roll No. 249519 who was seated next to him on 30th April, 1973 when he appeared for English paper B. The petitioner was farther asked to explain this strange coincidence but he could not offer any explanation and only stated that he had answered the question independently without taking any help from anybody. Me further stated that he had nothing more to say and did not produce any evidence in defence.

(3.) ON behalf of the petitioner, in the main two arguments have been advanced. It is firstly pointed out that the result of the examination having been declared no action against the petitioner could be taken under regulation 7 of the Regulations for Examinations. The second argument advanced is that no notice under regulation 28 had been issued and that in any case the Vice -Chancellor could not quash the result of the examination.