SEEMA RANI Vs. MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a student of B.A. IIIrd year, appeared in the B.A. I (Compartment) Examination in English under Roll No. 102253 conducted by the respondent-University in April, 1997. Dimple Slonia, another girl student taking the same examination under Roll No. 102254 was seated just behind her in the Examination Hall. According to the petitioner, no incident of any kind had taken place on 3rd April, 1997 involving her and the Invegitation Staff, though some such incident had happened involving Dimple Slonia, and a report to that effect was also made to the Centre Superintendent respondent No. 4 by Smt. Pritbha Singla-respondent No. 3, the Supervisor of the Examination. A copy of that report has been appended as Annexure R-1/1 with the written statement filed by the respondent University. The petitioner's case further is that when the result of B.A. I (Compartment) examination was declared in June 1997, she found that her result was not forthcoming as proceedings for an unfair means case had been initiated against her. On making enquiry, the petitioner obtained information that the U.M.C. pertained to her misbehaviour with Pritbha Singla-respondent No. 3 the Supervisor of the Examination on 3.4.1997 as a report Annexure R-1/2 dated 5.4.1997 had been conveyed to the University by the said respondent substituting her name in place of Dimple Slonia as being the guilty one. The petitioner appeared before the Unfair Means Committee (hereinafter called the Committee) on 22.7.1997 to ascertain the details with regard to the allegations that had been levelled and she was informed about the report that had been made against her. The petitioner, however, brought to the notice of the Committee that no incident involving her and the Supervisor had in fact taken place and the incident that had happened pertained to Dimple Slonia taking the examination under Roll No. 102254. The case of the petitioner is that though an assurance was held out by the Committee that an independent enquiry would be held into the matter, yet no such course was adopted and vide letter dated 30.9.1997. Annexure R-1/3 the Committee found the petitioner guilty of misconduct at the time of the examination and decided to cancel the entire examination in which she had appeared in April, 1997 and also debarring her from appearing in any University Examination for a period of one year i.e. up to and including the Examination of April, 1998. It is this action of the respondent-University that has been challenged in the present proceedings.

(2.) Notice of mention was issued in the case and a reply has been filed on behalf of the University-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 which has been adopted by respondent No. 3 and 4. The stand taken by the respondents is that the incident involving the petitioner had taken place on 3rd April, 1997 but a report had erroneously been made against Dimple Slonia vide Annexure R-1/1 dated 3rd April, 1997 and after the Supervisor-respondent No. 3 found that a mistake had been committed, she had submitted a supplementary report Annexure R-1/2 dated 5.4.1997 pointing out that the petitioner and not Dimple Slonia was the guilty one. The respondents have, accordingly, pleaded that the petitioner was liable to be punished under sub-clause (e) of Clause 4 of the Ordinance for punishment for the use of Unfair Means and as such, the order passed against the petitioner was fully justified.

(3.) Mr. R.K. Arora, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that respondent No. 3 in her report Annexure R-1/1 had clearly reported that Dimple Slonia had been guilty of misconduct/misbehaviour but in the report Annexure R-1/2 by naming the petitioner, a complete somersault had been made and for the first time, it had been suggested that in addition to the misbehaviour, an attempt to cheat had also been made by the petitioner. He has then referred to Annexure-R-1/4, a written statement given by respondent No. 3 to the committee on 26.9.1997 wherein the allegations of misbehaviour and also an attempt to cheat had also been levelled. Mr. Arora's case, therefore, is that for reasons not known, respondent No. 3 had shown an undue interest in absolving Dimple Slonia and had sought to substitute the petitioner instead.