KIRPAL SINGH Vs. VICE-CHANCELLOR, PUNJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of two Civil Writ Petitions, one filed by Kirpal Singh and the other by Kartar Singh, Nos. 13 and 31 of 1967 respectively. They prayed that the orders passed by the Punjab University disqualifying each of them from appearing in the B.Sc. (Agriculture), Part II Examination for two years i.e 1966-67, copies marked as annexure A-3, in both the files, be quashed. The facts as alleged by them in support of their prayer briefly stated are these. Both of them joined the B.Sc. (Agri.) as students in the Khalsa College, Amritsar, in the year 1964. They passed B.Sc. (Agriculture) Part I, Examination in the following year. The examination for the B.Sc (Agri.) Part II commenced on the 11th of May, 1966. Their examination centre was Khalsa College, Amritsar. Ms. Vishwa Mitter, Head of the Hindi Department of the D.A.V. College, Amritsar, was the Superintendent. Mr. Nahar Singh from Baring College, Batala, District Gurdasput was the Deputy Superintendent of the Centre Besides them there were six Supervisors in the Examination Hall and all of them came from places outside Amritsar. Kirpal Singh petitioner whose Roll Number was 133 appeared in the paper of Animal Husbandry on May, 1966. He brought a chit on which was written certain matter concerning the paper of Animal Husbandry from home to refresh his memory in the way and handed over this chit to the Superintendent before entering the examination Hall. He attempted the questions for this paper to the best of his ability. Similarly Kartar Singh whose Roll Number was 119 brought a chit and a printed leaf on which matters concerning paper of Field Crops were written to the Examination Hall on 19th May, 1963. He also handed over the same to the Superintendent before the start of the examination, but signed both of them on the asking of the Superintendent. On 19th May, 1966, the petitioners alongwith others were to appear in the Economics Paper. As the question paper was out of course and the candidates felt very restive, the Superintendent asked them in the Hall not to attempt the paper and assured them that he would have the re-examination in the said paper. The boys on this assurance submitted their answer books blank. The examination ended on 18th June, 1966. None of the two petitioners was suspected or reported for using any unfair means in the Examination Hall. The result of B.Sc. (Agri.) Part II was declared on 19th August, 1966. In the result sheet is was given that the result of the 31 candidates including the two petitioners would be declared later on. The petitioners thought that it was because of the paper of the Economics having been left blank by them on the assurance given by the Superintendent. The affected candidates came to Chandigarh on or about the 2nd/3rd September, 1966, and explained to the University Authorities that they had not answered the Economics Paper on the assurance given by the Superintendent that they should return the answer books blank. The latter was also in Chandigarh on that day. He gave to the University Authorities in writing that he had asked the boys to leave the paper blank.

(2.) There is said to be a long standing rivalry between the Managing Committees, of the Khalsa College, Amritsar, and the D.A.V. College, Amritsar. The Superintendent being of the latter institution was not well disposed towards the students of the former College, including the two petitioners. The Superintendent on 31st May, 1966, annexure R-1, recorded to the Vice-Chancellor of the Punjab University, respondent, that almost 90 percent candidates brought unlawful help notes to the Examination Hall and would not surrender such papers to the Supervisory staff even when detected. The staff was threatened with dire consequences if they insisted on the surrender of these papers. He sent along with his communication list of cases in which such unlawful notes were recovered from the possession of the candidates. He had sent the recovery written notes to the Assistant Registrar (UMC) for necessary action. The Roll Number of the two petitioners also occurred in this list. Against Roll No. 133 is written "small piece both sides written" and against Roll No. 119 is written, 'two typed, 2 hand written I small". It looks that the Superintendent on the asking of the Assistant Registrar on 2nd July 1967, made separate reports about the two petitioners (Annexure R-2). As regards Kirpal Singh he stated that the very small piece of paper was recovered by him from the candidate at 3-40 P.M. on 17th May, 1946. The candidate is said to have refused to sign the recovered paper. The pieces of papers one printed and the other hand written are said to have been recovered from the possession of Kartar Singh at 4.10 P.M. on 19th May, 1966. These were found lying under his answer book and bore his signatures. Nothing was heard till 15th September, 1966, when D.P. Verma Assistant Registrar, Punjab University visited the Khalsa College, Amritsar. The two petitioners along with others were already there waiting for him. They were given a questionnaire each to be answered, which they did. The questionnaires containing the answers of the petitioners are on separate files and marked annexure R-3. The petitioners denied having used any unfair means during the course of the examination Kirpal Singh in answer to question No. 6 stated, "I say by God, that I was not asked to give my statement in the examination Hall. You can ask any person in my row or near by me on that day. I was not asked to give any statement nor I refused to sign the chit because there was no paper (without question paper and Ans book) with me while the examination was on." The other petitioner (Kartar Singh) explained that he handed over the two papers to the Superintendent before the start of the examination. They further added that the Superintendent never recorded their statements during the course of the examination and that they were not given second answer-book after the alleged recovery of the incriminating material from their possession. The statement of the Superintendent, Nahar Singh Deputy Superintendent and so also the report of the expert were not shown to them when they answered the questionnarsis. the two petitioners along with so many others wrote to the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar of the Punjab University on 8th October, 1966 that before a final decision was given by the Standing Committee of the Punjab University in their unfair means cases they may be given an opportunity to cross-examine the Superintendent, copy annexure A-2. The Standing Committee of the Punjab University, however, without giving the petitioners any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses who had reported against them came to the conclusion that the two petitioners were in possession of the papers mala fide and so disqualified each of them from appearing in the B.Sc. (Agri.) Examination Part II for two years.

(3.) The petitioners alleged that the said two orders were without jurisdiction, against the Rules of natural justice and invalid in law because all the available material with the Punjab University, respondent, was not supplied to them, that they were not given an opportunity to cross-examine the Superintendent of the Examination Hall so that full facts could be brought out on the record and that neither the Superintendent nor the Deputy Superintendent or the Expert made the statement used against them in their presence.