MADHU MALHOTRA Vs. THE HIMACHAL PRADESH UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner appeared in the Pre -University Examination in November, 1974 When she was taking the English Paper 'B' on November 5, 1974, the Superintendent apprehended her with a note of paper, apparently containing information required for answering that paper. Her statement was recorded by the Superintendent. She stated that the note had been thrown in from outside the hall and that it she was in the act of handing it over to the Superintendent. On December 19, 1974 the Registrar of the Himachal Pradesh University sent a notice to the Petitioner intimating that on the basis of a report received from the Superintendent it appeared that she had been guilty of employing unfair means in the examination and that she should submit an explanation. She was also asked to appear before the Examination Disciplinary Committee on January 7, 1975 and produce such defence and bring such witnesses as she desired. On December 31, 1974 the Petitioner submitted her explanation, reiterating what she rad said to the Superintendent. When she appeared before the Examination Disciplinary Committee on January 7, 1975 she maintained her original stand and continued to protest her innocence On January 16, 1975 she was informed by the Registrar of the University that the Committee had found her guilty under Ordinance 6.35(g) of the First Ordinances of the University, and while ordering the cancellation of the entire examination it had disqualified her for a period extending up to and including the Supplementary Examination of 1975 from appearing at any university examination. On January 22, 1975 the Petitioner submitted a representation to the Vice -Chancellor of the University urging that she had applied on December 31, 1974 for an opportunity to produce a number of witnesses in support of her case, and that the Committee had decided against her without affording her that opportunity. She prayed that the Vice Chancellor should refer the case back to toe Committee for a fresh decision after giving her an opportunity to examine those witnesses. A document, purporting to be a copy of the said application dated December 31, 1974, was filed with the representation. Thereafter, on January 27, 1975 the Assistant Registrar (Examinations) wrote to the Petitioner setting out a number of circumstances from which be inferred that her allegation was not acceptable that she had applied on December 31, 1974 for an opportunity to examine witnesses. She was required to prove her allegation. The Petitioner wrote to the Vice -Chancellor confirming that she had indeed made an application for producing her witnesses. On March 5, 1971 the Assistant Registrar (Examinations) informed her:

(2.) THE Petitioner has now filed this writ petition praying that the orders of the Committee communicated to her by the letters dated January 16, 1975 and March 3, 1975 of the Assistant Registrar (Examinations) be quashed.

(3.) ORDINANCE 6.38(g) of the First Ordinances of the University reads: