HAKIM RAI SHARMA Vs. PUNJAB UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition arises under the following circumstances: The petitioner, who is a B.T., appeared for the simple language test in Hindi at the Sohan Lal Training College, Ambala City, in September 1955. The University authorities came to the conclusion that unfair means had been adopted by the petitioner at the said examination and, consequently, he was disqualified for four years (1955 58 inclusive) under Regulation 13 of the University. The petitioner contends that he was not guilty of having adopted any unfair means and, consequently, the order passed by the respondent against him is an infringement of his fundamental rights. Consequently, I am requested to issue a writ against the respondent, quashing the order passed by it against the petitioner and directing it to declare the result of the Hindi examination, on the basis of his answers to the Hindi Part of the question paper.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is obvious that, in the present case, the petitioner and the respondent do not see eye to eye regarding facts. While the petitioner contends that he had not resorted to any unfair means at the examination, the respondent is of the opinion, vide Annexure B, that the petitioner had made previous arrangement with another candidate (Roll No. 616), whereby each was to personate for the other. Consequently, action was taken against the petitioner under Regulation 13.

(3.) IN my opinion, however, the writ petition is misconceived. As already stated, the facts of the case are disputed. In Ranvijai Singh v. Divisional Forest Officer, AIR 1953 Him Pra 33 (B), my learned predecessor indicated that: