EIRA Vs. GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY AMRITSAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is by a minor girl seeking a direction against the Guru Nanak Dev University to declare her result of Pre-Medical Examination held in April/May, 1985 and further suitable reliefs.

(2.) Having appeared in the aforesaid University examination, the petitioner awaited her result but instead received a notice dt.June 18, 1985 from the University-respondent to appear before its Standing Committee to answer charge that she had deliberately made distinctive marks in her answer-books in two of her physics papers and one Chemistry paper in order to disclose her identity. She appeared before the Standing Committee at the stipulated time and date, owned the writings on her answer-books but denied having deliberately made any distinction in the answer-books in order to disclose her identity. The Standing Committee vide order Annexure-R.1 took the view that the identification marks, reference to which would be made shortly, were made by the petitioner deliberately and, therefore, she was held guilty for contravening the provisions of Ordinance 11(r) of the Ordinances relating to Unfair Means cases. As a result thereof, the result of the examination of the petitioner was withheld in the first instance and then later, giving her no marks at all in the aforesaid papers, she was declared fail. It is to challenge that order and the consequential result that the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) The relevant Ordinance 11(r) is in the following terms :- "11. The use of unfair means in, or in relation to, the examination shall include the following acts or omissions on the part of the candidate, viz; XX XX XX (r) deliberately disclosing one's identity or making any distinctive mark in the answer-book for that purpose." Punishment for such offence is prescribed in Ordinance 12.1(a) which is the disqualification from passing that examination in which found guilty and from appearing in the supplementary bi-annual examination. In the first instance, the offence defined need be understood in its correct perspective. The opening word "deliberately" lays emphasis that the act of the offender should be wilful, conscious, intended and volitional. The act must be in order to disclose one's identity. In the alternative, it must be of making any distinctive mark in the answer-book for that purpose; that is to say for the purpose of disclosing his/her identity. When culled out, the operative portion said to apply to the petitioner is that she deliberately made distinctive marks in the answer-book for the purpose of disclosing her identity. At this stage, the alleged distinctive marks may be explained and described, especially when the answer-books of the petitioner as well as the file of the Unfair Means Committee, as ordered by the Motion Bench, have been placed before me.