NEERAN Vs. PUNJAB UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Punjab University, respondent No. 1 by their notification No. B/B. Sc. (TDC)-1/67-A/37 (Annexure A-7) on the basis of an order passed by the Standing Committee (Annexure A-8) amongst others also disqualified Kumari Neeran petitioner for 1967 and 1968 (four sessions) under Regulation 13(b) of the Punjab University Calendar from appearing in the T.D.C. Part I Examination. The petitioner in the present writ petition has prayed that both, the notification and the order may be quashed. The facts relevant for the disposal thereof may be noticed here. The petitioner was an examinee in the T.D.C. Part I. Examination held in April, 1967, at Qadian Examination Centre. Her roll No. was 33694. She received a letter dated the 13th July, 1967, from the Assistant Registrar directing her to appear before him on 25th July, 1967, as it had been reported that she had adopted unfair means in the English Paper 'A', (Annexure A-1). Along with this letter she received report of the Head Examiner (Annexure A-2) and an extract from the report of the Expert (Annexure A-3) which indicated that a number of examinees at the Qadian Centre including the petitioner had copied from each other. The petitioner on the due date appeared before the Assistant Registrar where she was handed over a questionnaire. She gave suitable reply to all the questions stated therein denying the charge of adopting unfair means by her vehemently. She was not shown the Sub-Examiner's report at the time. She also appeared before the Standing Committee (Annexure A-5) where she was asked to state as to why answer to question Nos. 6 and 7, English Paper 'A' given by her and candidate having roll No. 33695 were the same. She expressed her inability to give any explanation but added that candidate with roll No. 33695 was also a girl and was present before her at the time and was sitting immediately behind her. The Standing Committee in their impugned order, Annexure A-8, dealt with the cases of all the roll numbers who said to have adopted unfair means. As regards the candidate roll No. 33695, they observed that the answers to question Nos. 6 and 7 given by her did not tally with the answers given by candidates bearing roll Nos. 33674 and 33694, but went on to observe that answer to question No. 6 of the examinees bearing roll Nos. 33674 and 33694, however, tallied except for very minor differences. Therefore, they held both of these candidates guilty of using unfair means and disqualified them for four sessions. The petitioner alleges that the two orders, Annexure A-7 and Annexure A-8 were illegal and without jurisdiction inter alia on the following grounds :-

(2.) The Registrar on behalf of the respondent in his affidavit maintained that the impugned orders were based on evidence that 12 candidates out of the 32 reported against by the Head Examiner were not disqualified because they were by way of abundant precaution given the benefit of doubt. He also explained that the Standing Committee in fact enquired from the petitioner as to how the answer to question No. 6 given by her and the candidate with roll No. 33674 tallied but unfortunately through an advertant clerical typing mistake roll No. 33695 was mentioned instead of roll No. 33674. He also urged that the Punjab University was taking disciplinary action against the Superintendent and other members of the Supervisory staff of the Qadian Centre. He did not disclose whether their statements in connection with the use of unfair means by the candidates were taken or not.

(3.) The main grievance of the petitioner is that the Standing Committee disqualified her on facts which were never put to her at any stage. Her learned counsel went to the extent of contending that the Sub-Examiner, Head Examiner and the Export did not say in their report anywhere that the petitioner or the candidate roll No. 33674 copied from each other's answer-books. He, therefore, urged that the petitioner could be said to have been afforded no reasonable opportunity to explain her conduct before the passing of the two impugned orders and that being so these offended the rules of natural justice and as such were liable to be quashed. The Sub-Examiner, as is apparent, from his report, copy Annexure A-6 pointed out that unfair means had been used on a very large scale specially by candidates-Roll Nos. 33672 to 33746 as most of them had written superisingly identical answers to question Nos. 6 and 7. He felt that answers to those questions must have been dictated at the Centre. The Head Examiner endorsed the above view although with some modification. He observed that after going through the answer-books there was no doubt in his mind that unfair means had been used by the candidates. He doubted the integrity of the Supervisors and the Superintendent of the Centre concerned as the use of unfair means had been on a large scale, Annexure A-2. The Expert amongst other things also mentioned that examination of the scripts of roll Nos. 33694 and 19 others established the fact that they had used unfair means. He agreed with the findings of the Sub-Examiner and the Head Examiner so far as the case of these twenty was concerned. It will thus be seen that none of these three in their reports even remotely pointed out that the petitioner had copied from the script of candidate roll No. 33674 or vice versa. The questionnaire given to the petitioner for answer by the Assistant Registrar, copy of which is attached as annexure to the written statement, did not mention that the petitioner had copied from the answer-book of candidate-roll No. 33674. The Standing Committee, as already pointed out by me, required the petitioner to explain as to how answer to question Nos. 6 and 7 given by her and the candidate roll No. 33695 tallied. They did not mention the case of candidate roll No. 33674 to her. The Registrar in the written statement has tried to make out that the Standing Committee in fact enquired from the petitioner the reason as to how the answers to two questions done by her and candidate-No. 33674 tallied but the typist instead of mentioning roll No. 33674 typed roll No. 33695 by mistake. I am not prepared to accept this explanation. It is on the face of it absurd and ridiculous because in answer to a question put by the Standing Committee, the petitioner also mentioned, "Candidate with Roll No. 33695 who is also a girl and is now present before me, was sitting immediately behind me." The Standing Committee in their impugned order, Annexure A-8 has stated that a perusal of the seating plan indicated that the two candidates-roll Nos. 33674 and 33694 were seated in the same row intervened by some candidates. It meant that candidate-roll No. 33674 was not sitting immediately behind the petitioner. Therefore, if the petitioner had been asked to explain as to how the answer given by her and candidate-roll No. 33674 tallied she would not have stated that the particular candidate was sitting immediately behind her. It left no doubt in my mind that the petitioner at no stage by any authority was asked to explain the facts directly or remotely on the basis of which the Standing Committee disqualified her. Indeed she had been punished without being afforded any reasonable opportunity to explain her questionable conduct. The two orders, copies Annexures A-7 and A-8 thus suffer from an incurable infirmity.