(1.) The petitioner, who was employed as a Clerk-cum-typist in the Guru Nanak Khasla College, Daroli Kala(sic) Jalandhar, sought permission from her employer vide Annexure P-1 dated 21.11.1989 for appearing in the B.A. Part II Examination that was to be held in April, 1990. This permission was granted by the Principal vide an endorsement made on the said application on the same day. The petitioner also received her roll number from the University, respondent No. 1, and on the issuance of the date-sheet applied for leave for the relevant dates vide Annexure P-2 dated 14.4.1990. This permission was also granted by the Principal of the College by making an endorsement on the said application. The petitioner accordingly appeared in the examination as a private candidate, but as her result was not declared, she made enquiries from the University on which it transpired that an anonymous complaint had been received against her and the University intended to take action thereon. The University also sought the comments of the Principal, the respondent College, and he recommended that as an anonymous complaint had been made against the petitioner, it was liable to be ignored and that in any case the point raised in the complaint pertained to the functioning of the University and not of the college. The University nevertheless initiated proceedings against the petitioner for the use of unfair means vide notice Annexure P-4 dated 7.1.1991 and it was stated therein that action was proposed to be taken under Ordinance 10(j) read with Ordinance 13 of the Guru Nanak Dev University Calendar, 1986 Vol. II (hereinafter called the Calendar). The University also enclosed with Annexure P-4 an extract from the report of the subject expert in support of the proposed action. The University thereafter issued a revised notice Annexure P-6 dated 9.1.1991 and it was intimated that the action was also being proposed on the allegation that the action was also being proposed on the allegation that the petitioner had received help from an inside or outside source and that she had obtained admission to the examination on the basis of a false representation. The petitioner was also called upon to appear before the Unfair-means Committee at 9 a.m. on 16th January, 1991. The petitioner appeared before the Committee on the date fixed and projected her case but the University vide Notification Annexure P-7 dated ,4.2.1991 disqualified her from appearing in any examination of the University for a period of three years under Ordinance 10(u) read with Ordinance 11 of the Calendar. The petitioner thereafter filed a representation before the Vice Chancellor and this too was rejected vide Annexure P-8 dated 15.3.1991. Annexures P-7 and P-8 have been impugned in the present writ petition.
(2.) On notice of motion, a reply has been filed by the respondent-University and it has been pointed out that the Unfair-means Committee had, in its proceeding taken on 16.1.1991, (appended as Annexure R-1/1 with the reply), proposed action against the petitioner as she had concealed the fact that she was an in-service candidate and had under a stratagem, appeared as a private candidate instead, and that the order had been made after affording her a full hearing. It has nevertheless been admitted that of the two charges that had been framed against her, only one stood proved, that being the one under Ordinance 10(u) read with Ordinance 11 of the University Calendar whereas she had been exonerated of the second charge under Ordinance 10(j) read with Ordinance 13 thereof. The respondent has also appended a photograph of the examination form filled by the petitioner as Annexure R-1/2.
(3.) Mr. Akshay Bhan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has, at the very outset, pointed out that the more serious of the two charges against the petitioner had not been proved and that the petitioner had been found guilty of having concealed certain information which had enabled her to appear as a private candidate although she was an in-service candidate. He has also pointed out that the writ petition had been admitted way back on 26th April, 1991 on which date the operation of the impugned orders Annexures P-7 and P-8 had been stayed and it had been directed that the case be heard within six months thereafter. He has accordingly urged that as a very long time has since elapsed it would not be fair to non-suit the petitioner on the basis of a technicality, the more so she was not to blame for the alleged misdemeanour.