JASWINDER SINGH Vs. GND UNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This will also dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 10564, 10602 and 10745 of 1989 as the question involved is common in all these petitions.

(2.) The challenge in all these petitions is to Annexure P-2 dated July 28, 1989, vide which the petitioners have been disqualified from appearing in any examination of the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar (hearingafter referred to as the 'University') for a period of one year. However, in Writ Petition No. 10745 of 1989, Annexure P-2 is dated August 1, 1989, whereby the petitioners were disqualified from appearing in any University examination for a period of one year on the same reasons. Since return has been filed in Writ Petition No. 11000 of 1989, reference in the judgment will be to that writ petition.

(3.) The petitioners were the students of Lyallpur Khalsa College, Jalandhar. They appeared in B.Sc. Part III Examination conducted by the University. On 4th May, 1989, the petitioners appeared in the Chemistry paper 'A', wherein, the Writ Petition No. 10745 of 1989, the petitioners appeared in Physics 'A' on 24th April, 1989, when the flying squad of the University visited the examination hall and booked cases under unfair means regulations against the eleven students. However, none of the petitioner was among the students, who were detected by the flying squad in the examination hall. The flying squad is reported to have submitted a report to the University, which according to the petitioners, was never supplied to them nor it was shown to the petitioners. The result of B.Sc. Part III Examination was declared on July 2, 1989 by the University. Against the column of result in the University gazette, against the name of the petitioners, it was mentioned as "R.L. (O.R."), meaning thereby "result later because of other reasons". When the petitioners enquired from the office of the University as to why their result was not declared, no satisfactory reply was given to them. However, suddenly the petitioners received cyclostyled letter from the Controller of Examinations, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, dated 20th July, 1989, informing them that there is a case of unfair means against them and that they may appear before the Standing Committee dealing with the cases of alleged use of unfair means on July 27, 1989. A copy of this notice is attached as Annexure P-1. Accordingly, the petitioners appeared before the Standing Committee on the date fixed. The members of the committee hardly took 8-10 minutes, along with the other candidates, put together. The members asked the petitioners that there were certain common mistakes in the replies of the candidates in the answer-sheets and the petitioners explained them that it was because of the fact that there is similar mistakes in the books, from which they had prepared their questions. They denied any allegation of unfair means or copying in the examination hall. On that very day the Committee disqualified the petitioners under Ordinance 10(j) or the Ordinances dealing with the punishment of unfair means cases for a period of one year. The Committee, however, dropped the changes against the petitioners under Ordinance 10(h) and Ordinance 13 of the said Ordinances. The impugned order is Annexure P-2. The said order has been challenged inter alia, on the ground that the cases alleged against the petitioners do not fall under any of the regulations dealing with the unfair means. There was no power with the Vice-Chancellor to send the answer-books to expert. There is no regulation for disqualifying a candidate on the ground that there was a common mistake in their answer-books. The charges against the petitioners under Ordinance 13 and Ordinance 10(h) were dropped and they were found guilty only under Ordinance 10(j) which had absolutely no applicability on the facts and circumstances of the case. Moreover, according to the petitioners, the principles of natural justice were violated as the full report of the subject-expert was never supplied to them nor the report of the flying squad; neither sufficient time was given to them for reply. Even the material captured from the other students by the flying squad was never given to them for reply. Even the material captured from the other students by the flying squad was never given to them nor the material used against them was ever shown by the Standing Committee. Moreover, the students against whom cases were registered have been exonerated, whereas, the petitioners against whom no case was registered by the flying squad nor any material was recovered from them have been held guilty arbitrarily. According to the learned counsel, there was no evidence of copying at all and the impugned order is based on presumption only. If it was a case of mass copying, as alleged by the University, then in that situation, the University should have cancelled the examination of the Centre, but it could not discriminate the petitioners from other students who were found guilty by the flying squad but were exonerated by the Committee. In support of this contention, reference was made to Jasbir Singh and others v. Panjab University Chandigarh and another, 1989 AIR(P&H) 107, Bhagat Ram Patanga v. State of Punjab, 1972 AIR(SC) 1571 Rakesh Kumar v. The State of Panjab and others, 1965 AIR(P&H) 507 Suresh Kumar Bagaria v. University of Rajasthan and another, 1981 AIR(Raj) 188and Suresh Kumar son of Murli Dhar v. Punjab University through the Registrar Punjab University Chandigarh, 1966 AIR(P&H) 152