RANJEET SINGH Vs. UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution by one Ranjeet Singh challenging the validity of a notification dated 10. 8. 64, issued by the University of Rajasthan, whereby the University cancelled the examination taken by the petitioner in 1964, and also debarred him from appearing at any subsequent examinations of the University to be held in three succeeding years.

(2.) THE petitioner was a student of the Second Year Three-Degree Course (Science) at the University of Rajasthan. He sat at the Second Year Examination held by the University in April, 1964, at the Bikaner centre. On 6. 4. 64, the petitioner answered his Mathematics Paper No. 1. His case is that after answering the paper he went to his house, but soon thereafter he was called by the Principal, Doongar College, to his office. Accordingly, the petitioner presented himself before the Principal who then told him that one of the invigilators Shri Jag Mohan Mittal had complained against the petitioner that he had used unfair means at the time of answering the question paper of that day. THE petitioner replied that the allegation was completely wrong and he had not used any unfair means at the examination. THE petitioner was then allowed to go home. THE petitioner asserts that he was never confronted with the invigilator Shri Jag Mohan Mittal and the Principal did not make any inquiry in the matter in the presence of the petitioner. When the results of the Second Year (Science) examination were announced the petitioner found that his result was withheld. On this the petitioner addressed a letter to the Registrar inquiring as to why his result had been withheld. THEre was no response to his communication, but eventually the Registrar of the University intimated the petitioner about the issuing of the impugned notification by the University. THE petitioner then made representations to the University for withdrawing the notification, but without any response.

(3.) IN Gullapalli Nageswara Rao vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (5) the question that came up for decision before their Lordships of the Supreme Court was whether in discharging quasi judicial functions the State Government could resort to its rules of business and their Lordships observed as follows - "at this stage, the argument hinted at but seriously pressed, may be noticed. The Rules the Governor is authorised to make, the argument proceeds, are only to regulate the acts of the Governor or his subordinates in discharge of the executive power of the State Government, and, therefore, will not govern the quasi-judicial functions entrusted to it. There is a fallacy in this argument. The concept of a quasi-judicial act implies that the act is not wholly judicial; it describes only a duty cast on the executive body or authority to conform to norms of judicial procedure in performing some acts in exercise of its executive power. The procedural rules made by the Governor for the convenient transaction of business of the State Government apply also to quasi-judicial acts, provided those Rules conform to the principles of judicial procedure. "