SUKHBINDER SINGH Vs. THE PUNJAB UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed by Sukhbinder Singh, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, challenging the order, dated 23rd January, 1968 passed by the University of the Punjab, disqualifying him for a period of two years i.e. 1967 -68 (four sessions) under regulation 13(b) given at page 106 of the Punjab University Calendar 1966, Volume I.

(2.) According to the allegations of the petitioner, he took Three Years Degree Course Part II examination held in April 1967 from Qadian Examination Centre. His Roll number was 3534 (12671 fictitious). Two other students also took the examination at the same centre. Their roll numbers were 3533 (12657 fictitious) and 3542 (12675 fictitious). The Superintendent and the supervisory staff in the examination centre had come from outside and were not known to the petitioner. The petitioner took his examination in all the papers to his satisfaction. During the course of the examination, neither the petitioner nor any other student was suspected or reported against for using any unfair means by the members of the supervisory staff. When the result of the examination was declared, the petitioner was surprised to find that his result had been kept pending. Later on, the petitioner received a letter from the University asking him to appear before the authorities in connection with the unfair means case pending against him. He, accordingly, went there on 5th of August, 1967. He was given a questionnaire and was asked to reply to it. In the said questionnaire, it was being suggested that the head examiner in Mathematics Paper II had sent a report that several students, including the petitioner, had copied answers to some of the questions set in the paper. The petitioner was alleged to have copied questions Nos. IV(a) and XI (i) along with roll numbers mentioned in the report. The petitioner denied the said suggestion and submitted that be had done those questions himself. It was also alleged that the copying had been done with the connivance of the supervisory staff. The petitioner denied that suggestion as well. From the report of the head examiner and the expert, it was quite clear that there was a mass scale copying at the centre. The expert had given the opinion that the said copying was due to the active help of the supervisory staff. The petitioner denied all the allegations and maintained that in presence of the effective supervision by the supervisory staff, it was not possible to indulge in copying. He also said that the questions had been attempted by him on his own. Sometime later, the petitioner was shocked to learn that he had been disqualified by the University for two years i.e. 1967 -68 and that decision was conveyed to him by the Principal, of the Sikh National College, Qadian vide his letter dated 31st January, 1968. That led to the filing of the present writ petition on 19th May, 1968.

(3.) In the return filed by the University, it was admitted that the petitioner was not detected in the examination hall using unfair means and no report to that effect was made by the members of the supervisory staff. The result of the petitioner was not declared and was kept pending on account of a complaint against him from the head examiner for his having used unfair means in the examination. It was admitted that the University had sent a letter asking the petitioner to appear in the University office in connection with the unfair means case pending against him. He did appear on 5th August, 1967 and was called upon to answer the charges against him. A questionnaire was supplied to him for recording his answers. He wrote the replies in his own hand after full consideration. The entire material available with the University, including the reports of the head examiner and the expert, were shown to him. His answer book and those of the other candidates relevant for the purpose of his case, were also produced before him. The precise charge against him was that he had copied question No. IV(a) and XI(i) from some other candidate/paper smuggled into the examination hall from outside. The University could not say definitely whether the smuggling had been done by the petitioner in connivance with the supervisory staff. Their answer books, however, showed that it was a case of copying. Hence a case of unfair means, which fell within the purview of regulation 13(b) of the Punjab University Calendar 1966 Volume I, had been established against him and a decision to that effect was taken by the Standing Committee of the University.