VISHAVJEET VERMA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF JAMMU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant appeared in all the papers of the annual examination of B.Sc Part-III, 2009 (Session-Annual) under Roll No. 1190314. Before declaration of his result, he received a notice bearing No. Conf/UFM/9/1811-75 dated 20th July, 2009 addressed by Assistant Registrar (Conf./UFM), University of Jammu conveying him that his name was figuring in the list of candidates whose answer scripts were noticed to have distinctive marks of identification in subject Mathematics Paper 'A' held on 25th of May, 2009 and was asked to appear before the competent authority on 27th of July, 2009 to defend his case, pursuant whereto, he appeared before the competent authority and submitted that he had started writing his name on the answer script inadvertently and before he could write his full name, he realized his mistake and tried to erase the same by his own pen. He further pleaded that his name was not legible. Ultimately, Controller of Examination issued notification No. 29 of 2009 ordering cancellation of all the papers for B.Sc final examination, 2009 (Session-Annual), aggrieved whereby, he preferred an appeal before the University Syndicate in August 2009. Without waiting for the outcome of the appeal, he knocked at the door of the writ court vide OWP No. 1062 of 2009 seeking quashment of the aforesaid notification (29 of 2009) issued by respondent No. 2 on several grounds including the violation of Statute 3(a) of the Chapter XXXIX, Statute 33 of the Chapter XL, Statute 14(5) of Chapter XLI as also Statute 5(a) of the chapter XXXIX of the University Statutes.

(2.) The respondents filed their reply/objections to the main writ petition taking the ground that the Statute on which the reliance was placed by the appellant was amended w.e.f 03-11-2006 whereby adding Statute 3(d) and 3(e) contained in Chapter XXXIX of University Statute. It was further the case of the respondents that the case of the appellant falls in Statute 4(j) and 4(u), which tantamounts to unfair means misconduct and, therefore, it was within the competence of the prescribed authority to cancel all the papers of a particular session.

(3.) The learned Writ Court after entering into a detailed discussion with regard to the stand taken by the either side and after going through the original record submitted by the University, ultimately dismissed the writ petition vide judgement/order dated 16th of August 2010. Aggrieved by the judgement, the appellant has filed this Instant Letters Patent Appeal.