VIMLA CHAUDHARI Vs. PUNJAB UNIVERSITY CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order of the respondent-University dated August 16, 1967 (Annexure 'r-8')published in the supplementary notification of the University, dated September 6, 1967 (Annexure 'a-I') disqualifying Miss Vimal Chaudhary petitioner for a period of two years, i. e. 1967 and 1968 (four sessions) under regulation 13 (b) of Part 'd' of the Punjab University Calendar 1066 (Volume I), page 106, for using unfair means at the Three Year Degree Course Part III examination in Sanskrit paper on April 21, 1967, has been called in question in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution on two grounds, namely:

(2.) THE University's version of what happened at the D. A. V. College, Abohar. Centre No. 1, in the morning session of April 21 1967 where the petitioner was taking the examination in question is contained in Annexure 'r-1' wherein the statements of the Supervisor, the Deputy Superintendent and the Superintendent of the Centre recorded in the examination hall on the date of occurrence have been reproduced verbatim. The statement of Pushpa Suneja, Supervisor, is that while she was working as such in the room in which the petitioner was taking her examination, she found the petitioner "in possession of two printed papers in english script possibly translation of Sanskrit. These papers were hidden in her hanky. . . . . . . . . . . . I smelled something wrong and went near her. As I approached near her, she swallowed these papers. In spite of my best efforts I could not recover these papers. Then I reported the matter to the Superintendent. The candidates were searched and warned before (they) entered. . . . . . . . . . . " Below that is the statement of the Deputy Superintendent to the effect that the petitioner "was detected as a case of unfair means by Pushpa Suneja, in charge supervisor (and) was immediately reported to the Superintendent by the Supervisor. The Deputy superintendent has further written that she was a witness to the case and that the candidates had been searched before entering the hall.

(3.) THEN follows the report of the Superintendent of the Centre. She first referred to the report of the Supervisor and then observed: