UNIVERSITY OF JAMMU Vs. DANISH WANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of two appeals filed against the common judgment rendered by the learned single Judge of this Court. Both the appeals have been preferred by the University against the common judgment holding that the writ petitioners could not have been punished by cancelling the examination of all the papers because they were found to have indulged malpractice of transferring marks from answer sheets of one paper only. According to the learned single Judge Statute 4(1) Chapter XXXIX of the Statutes relating to use of unfair-means to the examination was applicable and the penalty for the same was prescribed in clause (d) of Statute 5 which provides for cancellation of the paper concerned in which unfairmeans were adopted and the misconduct was committed. The view of the learned single Judge is discernible from the following paras of the judgment, which reads thus :

(2.) The appellant-University also filed a review petition bringing to the notice of the learned single Judge that adequate provisions existed in the shape of Statute 4(u) read with Statute 5(d) empowering the University to punish a student for using unfair-means/misconduct contemplated by Statute 4(u) by cancelling all his/her papers and disqualifying him/her from appearing or passing in that examination for two to five years. However, the review petition failed.

(3.) Mr. D. S: Thakur, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant University has submitted that the view taken by the learned single Judge is not sustainable especially when the findings have been recorded that the writ petitioners-respondents have used unfair-means in the examination. Once the factum of adopting malpractice in the examination is accepted, then the only question survives is whether the University could disqualify them in respect of the paper in which malpractice was committed or for whole of the examination. Accordingly to the learned counsel for learned single Judge has ignored the University Statute 4(u) read with clause (d) of Statute 5 in fact the learned counsel has fairly stated that the aforesaid Statute could not be properly pleaded before the learned single Judge which led to grave error in delivering the judgment. Mr. Thakur has pointed out that mistake was highlighted by filing review but it does not succeed.