SURESH KUMAR Vs. PUNJAB UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against a judgment of a learned Single Judge dismissing a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution.

(2.) ACCORDING to the allegations contained in the petition, the petitioner was a student of Government Higher Secondary National High School, Jaito, and he appeared in the Matriculation Examination held by the Punjab University in March 1963, from Jaito centre, his Roll No. being 113940. He appeared in English Paper 'a' on 1st March, 1963, and the examination in all other papers concluded on 28th march, 1963. It is further alleged that in the Jaito centre some students had been found using unfair means and a report had been made by the supervisory staff, but the petitioner was not one of them. The case of the petitioner was that one bhagwan Singh, who had been running a private academy at Jaito for coaching students for Matriculation Examination, had some personal differences with the Head Master of the School where the petitioner was studying, and he made a complaint accusing the Head Master of allowing the use of unfair means by students, and a confidential enquiry was ordered by the University authorities. Messrs. Shamsher Singh and Mohinder Singh were deputed to make a confidential enquiry at the premises of the Government High School, Jaito, into the alleged complaint of unfair means employed at Jatio centre in the Matriculation examination held in the month of March, 1963, and, therefore, the petitioner was to report himself to the said officers in connection with the said confidential enquiry. Although the petitioner does not clearly say what the nature of that enquiry was, but it is apparent that he was asked to answer a questionnaire (copy annexure Rule 1 ). In answer to question No. 5 he stated that he did not know about the wholesale copying at the centre, because he was busy with his work. In reply to question No. 7, which was to the effect that the scrutiny of his answer-book in English Paper 'a' revealed that his attempt in question No. IV resembled the answers given by roll numbers of other candidates, he stated that a summary had been dictated by the teacher (apparently before the examination) and the same was reproduced in the answer-book, but in answer to the next question he denied that he copied the same from anyone else or from the notes or papers in his possession. Question No. 10 was put in the following terms --"will you answer to Question No. IV now ?" the answer given by the petitioner was "sir, Yes. Very well. "

(3.) IT may be mentioned that the answers given in the questionnaire show that the petitioner answered them partly in Hindi and partly in English, and what has been stated by me before is the substance of the answers given by him. It seems that question No. 10 was either not clearly understood by him as it was perhaps couched in a language which was grammatically inaccurate, because the intention of the University authorities, as explained now, was to ask him to write out the answer to question No. IV at that time when the question was put.