KAWAL NAIN SINGH Vs. THE PANJAB UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner Kawal Nain Singh, an examinee in the Higher Secondary Part II Examination held in March, 1956, having been disqualified by an order of the Panjab University of 14th October, 1966 (Annexure A -1), for the years 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court to have it quashed.

(2.) THE examination in History Paper 'C' was held on 14th March, 1966, and it was in this paper that it was suspected that the Petitioner had smuggled some material embodied in continuation sheets in the examination hall. The Petitioner was summoned to appear before a functionary of the Panjab University on 18th August, 1966 and a detailed questionnaire was handed over to him. It cannot be denied that this questionnaire fairly put the case which the University had against him. Before any action was taken the Petitioner was also afforded an opportunity of perusing the reports which had been submitted by the Head Examiner and other experts in this connection. The Petitioner did not ask for any further material at the time when the questionnaire was handed over to him. The matter, according to regulations, was put to the standing committee and the Registrar, who is a member of this Committee, recorded a detailed note on 2nd of September, 1966, embodying his own view that the Petitioner had been guilty of using unfair means under regulation 14(a)(i) of the Panjab University Calendar (1966), Volume I. Mr. G.L. Chopra, a member of the Standing Committee, recorded a brief note on 16th of September, 1966, agreeing with the opinion of the Registrar. The third member, Bakhshi Sher Singh, however, took a different view of the matter and set out the points in his own note of 21st of September, 1966, which in his view entitled the candidate to be given a benefit of doubt. Bakhshi Sher Singh thought that the case against the Petitioner was based on mere suspicion.

(3.) THE proviso, which is not of importance for purposes of this case, to regulation No. 21 deals with a situation where within 30 days of the receipt of the decision by the candidate, the Vice -Chancellor thinks that some facts have come to light which, had they been before the Committee, might have induced them to come to a different decision.