HARSIMRAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners (14 in number) have challenged the order dated May 16, 2006, whereby the Punjab Technical University, respondent No. 2 has disqualified the petitioners from appearing in any of the examinations of the University for a period of two semesters on account of unfair means adopted by them. Additionally, the orders dated November 8/13, 2006 (Annexure P. 8), have also been impugned by the petitioners, whereby even on an appeal filed by the petitioners, the disqualification of the petitioners has been reiterated. The petitioners have additionally sought directions against respondent-University to declare their result of the examination conducted in December 2005 / January 2006 and also permit them to appear in further examinations.

(2.) The petitioners are students of B. Tech (IT), B. Tech (ME), B. Tech(E&CE) and were pursuing their studies in Amritsar College of Engineering and Technology, Amritsar, respondent No. 4. While appearing in their examinations in December 2005/January 2006, a flying squad of the University conducted a raid on the examination center, where the petitioners were appearing in their examinations. The petitioners were found in possession of a mobile phone, each, which was found to hidden in the turban of each one of the petitioners. Proceedings under Chapter XVI of the University Regulations were initiated against the petitioners. After holding the requisite enquiry, vide an order dated May 12, 2006 (passed separately against each of the petitioners), the charge of employing unfair means against each of the petitioners was held to be proved and consequently all the petitioners were disqualified for a period of two semesters. The decision of the Committee was communicated to each of the petitioners separately, through orders Annexure P. 1, whereby it was communicated that the result of the candidate stands cancelled for all the subjects in which he had appeared in December 2005/January 2006 and that he was debarred from appearing in any subsequent examinations for a period of two regular semesters. The petitioners were also informed that they may appear in examination in December 2006, for which they were eligible in December 2005. A communication addressed to Harsirnrat Singh, petitioner No. 1 has been appended as Annexure P. 1. Similar communications have been addressed to other petitioners.

(3.) The petitioners had on an earlier occasion approached this Court through CWP No. 8080 of 2006. At that point of time, the grievance made was that the orders in question, disqualifying the petitioners had been passed on May 16, 2006 and the examinations of the next semester were due to be held on May 25, 2006. Thus, a plea was raised that even sufficient time was not available with the petitioners so that they could challenge the aforesaid orders by way of a statutory appeal. The said writ petition filed by the petitioners was disposed of by this Court vide orders dated May 23. 2006. A liberty was granted to the petitioners to file an appeal within one week of the date of the receipt of the order. In the meantime, the petitioners were permitted to appear in the next semester examination provisionally subject to the decision of the appellate authority. It appears on the record that in spite of the copy of the order being available to the petitioners, having been supplied under the signatures of Bench Secretary, the petitioners chose to file the appeal with some delay. The said appeal was consequently not entertained. In these circumstances, the petitioners approached this Court through a contempt petition being COCP No. 1112 of 2006. The said contempt petition was disposed of by this Court on October 12, 2006 noticing that the petitioners had themselves filed the appeal after some delay. However, keeping in view the interest of justice, the Contempt Court allowed the petitioners to file an appeal and directed the appellate authority to consider the appeal on merits.