PARAMJEET KAUR Vs. PANJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH, ITS REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of two petitions bearing C.W.P. No. 4797 of 1993 (Ms. Paramjeet Kaur and others vs. Panjab University and others) and C.W.P.No. 9616 of 1993 (Jagdish Singh and others vs. Panjab University and others). The relief asked for in C.W.P. 4597 of 1993 is to declare replacement/substitutions of original paper setters and external examiners appointed by the respondent-University for specific term on the recommendations of the Board of Studies in respect of M.A. II (Physical Education) Examination, 1993 in theory paper No. 4 (Science of Training and Coaching) and theory paper No. 5 (Adapted Physical Education) and Practicals in Athletics and Games being illegal and in gross violation of the Panjab University Act, 1947 and the Regulations made thereunder. In asmuch as, during the pendency of this writ petition, the University has cancelled theory paper 4 (Science of Training and Coaching-A for MA. Part (Physical of Training and Coaching -A for M.A. Part (Physical Education) and Practical Lesson on Athletics for B.P.Ed. MA. Part I and M.A. Part II. Civil Writ Petition No. 9616 of 1993 has been filed praying therein that the said order of the respondent-University be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari.

(2.) Facts as extracted from Civil Writ Petition 4597 of 1993 reveal that department of Physical Education, Panjab University offers under-graduate and post-graduate degree/diploma courses, B.P. Ed. (Bachelor of Physical Education, M.A. (Physical Education). Objective of the aforesaid post-graduate courses, it is stated, is that in the subject of Physical Education students are to be qualified to be leaders in the field of physical Education, sports and Recreation. The training involves a great deal of physical and mental work and therefore, only those who have built bodies, sound health, high grades and sports and a good academic record shall be suitable for it. It is pleaded that cherishing the same objective, petition No. 3 obtained a degree of Bachelor of physical Education as a regular student and was awarded a Gold Medal for undergoing the said degree course. Petitioners were admitted to two years postgraduate degree course in physical Education during the academic year 1991-92, after having completed the eligibility conditions as laid in the hand-book of information for the year 1991 published by the respondent-University. The petitioners appeared in M.A. Part I examination in the year 1992 and while they successfully passed, petitioner No. 3 was adjudged the topper in the University. During their tenure as students of M.A. Part II, they were deputed to assist and participate in conducting the inter college relay race competition which was being organised under the aegis of Panjab University Campus Sports Department, where respondent No. 3 is employed as Deputy Director. During the said relay races, respondents No. 8, Reet Mohinder Singh, Deputy Director, Campus Sports, Panjab University, Chandigarh did not feel the presence of the women students, including the petitioner, who were on duty and it is pleaded that he exhibited behaviour which was of unbecoming of an officer of the respondent-University. He used objectionable language. He misbehaved with women students to such an extent that while snatching away watches from those who were on 'Time Keepers duty', including petitioner No. 1 also physically pushed them in the presence of hundreds of spectators. The students withdrew from the scene under protest and lodged a complaint with respondent No. 5, Lecturer Department of Physical Education, through their class representative.

(3.) The main point seeking the relief aforesaid rests on the grounds, inter alia, that it is statutory duty of the respondent-University to conduct fair examination and that the authorities are charged with working out modalities and responsibility for preparation to conduct examination under statutory obligation to maintain integrity and to observe all codal and moral responsibility in this behalf. Annexures P-4, P-6 and P-7, it is pleaded and so argued by the learned counsel are sufficient to manifest that the respondents failed to maintained absolute integrity in discharging the functions of the Chairman of the Department of Physical Education and rather arbitrarily, illegally and without any competence changed the paper sheets and external examiners by his sheer whims and fancies and therefore, the practical examination for lesson on Training and coaching in Athletics and Games particularly in Gymnastics and Basket Ball specailisation particularly in Gymnastics and basket ball specialisation carrying 200 marks out of the total of 700 marks are vitiated and cannot be held to be validity conducted. It is further the case of the petitioners that the appointment of paper setters and examiners is governed by the general rules contained in the University Calendar Volume III, 1985. The change brought about in the manner as referred to above it is argued is against the general rules. Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 7.1, 7.2,8, 9.1, 10 and 11 which are relevant for appreciating the points noticed above, read thus:-