P.K.NANDA Vs. HIMACHAL PRADESH UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petition has been filed seeking for the issue of writ of a mandamus to direct the second Respondent, who is the Controller of Examinations, H.P. University, to refer the complaints of the Petitioner filed as Annexures P-1, P-2 and P-3 dated 16.4.1998, 27.4.1998 and 28.4.1998, respectively, to Respondent 3, to inqurie into the complaints as per law and submit its report in this Court within a specific time frame, empowering also the third Respondent to seek assistance of Government Investigating Agency in case it is so desired in view of its limited powers of inquiry.

(2.) The Petitioner claims that he is working as Associate Professor in the Department of Physiology, Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla (for short, I.G.M.C., Shimla), that it is necessary for him to file the writ petition on account of failure of the Respondents to discharge their statutory obligation inspite of written complaints regarding use of alleged unfair means by the students and examiners in the first professional M.B.B.S. examination, April 1998 and that such failure has resulted in violation of the Petitioner's fundamental rights under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, besides putting the other students to an academic disadvantage. The further plea of the Petitioner is that I.G.M.C., Shimla is affiliated to the first Respondent-University for the purpose of medical education and awarding of degrees, that the first professional M.B.B.S. Annual examination were held in April 1998 by the University at I.G.M.C. Centre which included theory and practical as well as oral examination of the concerned students and that the Petitioner was appointed by the University as a Second Internal Examiner in the subject of Physiology and, therefore, he had personal knowledge regarding the various stages of conduct of the said examination. According to the Petitioner, during the conduct of the said examination, he detected that one particular candidate/ student bearing Roll No. 3415, had sufficiently befriended and influenced two examiners, one in the subject of Bio-Chemistry and the other in the subject of Physiology and that it also came to his notice that the said candidate had conspired and connived with the said examiners in order to be evaluated favourably in the said examination. The Petitioner claims to have reported the matter to the Controller of Examinations by his letter dated 16.4.1998 with copies to the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor of the University and his strong apprehension about the collusive attitude of the examiners with the said student with a request to depute some neutral outside examiner in order to ensure fair and impartial conduct of the examination. It is further stated that during the said examination the Petitioner witnessed shocking and blatant instances of favouritism by one of the examiners, who had said to have gained over by the said student and the details of which the Petitioner said to have again reported to the second Respondent in his letter dated 27.4.1998 with copy of the Vice-Chancellor of the University. It is further stated that the Petitioner came to know that the said candidate was trying to exert undue influence on the examiners in the subject of Bio-Chemistry in order to get undue favours in the examination and that this promptly reported to the second Respondent in the letter dated 28.4.1998. After narrating such facts, the Petitioner states that the normal practice in the conduct of M.B.B.S. examination is that final result is prepared on the last date of the examination by all the concerned examiners who sign the completed result sheet and thereafter the result-sheet is put under sealed cover in order to ensure that there is absolutely no scope for manipulation and delivered to the University, but this year, according to the Petitioner, there was undue delay of at least one week in delivery of the result-sheet of Bio-Chemistry to the University, which leads to strong suspicion in the peculiar background as mentioned by the Petitioner and that such irregularities and unfair practice involving the students and examiners of professional examinations by using unfair means assume greater significance as it is bound to affect the quality of medical education and morale of the other students. It is the further case of the Petitioner that he has irrefutable and convincing evidence in his possession to prove most of the complaints and circumstantial evidence to prove the other aspects of the complaints as and when required to do so by the Respondents. Aggrieved against the fact that there was no positive response to the communications sent by him, he appears to have met the Controller of Examinations on 4.5.1998 and despite the alleged verbal assurance said to have been given to him to look into the complaints and take appropriate action, there was no such active response and this necessitated the Petitioner to come to this Court. It is stated that the complaints submitted by him constitutes unfair means under Clause (m) and (n) of Ordinance 6.35 of the First Ordinances of Himachal Pradesh University, 1973, as amended up to March 1993, and, therefore, it was the statutory duty and obligation of the second Respondent to refer the allegations regarding use of unfair means as contained in the complaints of the Petitioner to the Examination Discipline Committee under Ordinance No. 6.38 (a) and inasmuch as the second Respondent failed to discharge such duties, the reliefs, as prayed for, may be granted.

(3.) After issue of notice, the Respondents filed a common reply contending that for the conduct of examinations, Internal and the External Examiners are appointed by the Vice-Chancellor on the recommendations of the Clean of Medical Faculty, who is invariably Senior Professor of I.G.M.C., Shimla out of panel of names suggested by the concerned Heads of Departments and the Principal of I.G.M.C. and the Dean of Medical Faculty conduct the examinations on behalf of the University. It is also averred that there was no such incidence, as referred to by the Petitioner, and no such case was submitted by the Centre Superintendent to the University and consequently there is no cause for action on the part of the Respondent-University. While admitting the receipt of letter dated 16.4.1998 on 20.4.1998, the letter dated 27.4.1998 on 2.5.1998, the letter dated 28.4.1998 on 18.5.1998, the Respondents state that no action could be taken on the letter dated 16.4.1998 since it was only an apprehension expressed by the Petitioner and that with reference ' to letters dated 27.4.1998 and 28.4.1998, they were forwarded to the Principal seeking for a report from him. It is stated that with reference to letter dated 27.4.1998, the Principal informed that the complaint had been enquired into and found to be baseless and so far as the letter dated 28.4.1998 is concerned, the Respondents state that the awards in the subject of Bio-Chemistry had been received in the University duly signed by the External (Dr. H.C. Mehta) as well as Internal Examiners (Dr. R.M. Pathak) in sealed covers and no cutting, overwriting or erasing was found in the award-sheet. The Respondents also submit that the University was satisfied on the basis of the reply received from the Principal and the materials received, it called for no further action particularly because no acts of use of unfair means noticed by the Centre Superintendent and the question of referring the same to the Examination Discipline Committee does not arise. While claiming that the Respondents have discharged their duties in accordance with law and the relevant procedure, it is stated that many of the averments of the Petitioner are figment of imagination and that there are absolutely no merits whatsoever in the grievance of the Petitioner.