OM PRAKASH Vs. UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was a student of the Dayanand College, Ajmer, appeared at the B.Com. (Final) examination of the University of Raj. In the year 1974. He appeared in the first three papers of the aforesaid examination commencing from April 16, 1974. But while he was appearing at the fourth paper on April 22, 1974, the Invigilator concerned in the examination hall is alleged to have found a piece of paper in the answer book of the petitioner. The petitioner refuted the allegation and stated that the place of paper was lying on the ground and the petitioner had no concern with the same. The Invigilator prepared a report in the prescribed Performa which was shown to the petitioner and having read the same, the petitioner wrote thereon that he denied the truth of the said report. The petitioner was there after allowed to appear at the subsequent papers. However, the Centre Superintendent referred the case of the petitioner to the University on the allegation that the petitioner had used unfair means at the aforesaid examination. The petitioner submitted a representation to the University on May 15, 1974 denying having used unfair means and demanding that the matter may be fully investigated. In July 1974, when the results of the B.Com. (Final) examination of the University of the year 1974 were declared, the result of the petitioner was with held. The Registrar of the University sent a letter to the petitioner on August 22, 1974 directing him to appear before the Standing Committee appointed by the University to consider such cases, on August 30, 1974. The petitioner did appear before the Standing Committee in pursuance of the aforesaid direction and gave his clarification. Thereafter, the petitioner further gave a detailed representation to the University on October 5, 1974 and emphasised that the requirements of Ordinance 152 of the University were not complied with in the case of the petitioner. After some reminders, the Registrar of the the University informed the petitioner by his letter dated December 16, 1974 (Anx. 5) that the 1974 examination of the petitioner was cancelled by the University on account of his resorting to unfair means at the said examination.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the aforesaid decision of the University cancelling the result of his B.Com. (Final) examination of the year 1974. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the University failed to comply with the provisions of ordinance 162 of the University, which specifically lays down the procedure to be followed by the University in cases where unfair means were used in connection with the University examinations. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Invigilator or any other person conversant with the facts of the case were not examined by the Standing Committee in the presence of the petitioner nor the petitioner was allowed an opportunity to cross -examine the Invigilator or any other witness He further submits that the report of the Head Examiner was in favour of the petitioner, in as much as it was mentioned therein that the petitioner had not used the material, which was alleged to have been found in his possession, while answering the questions in his answer book. The further grievance of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to lock into the material placed on record on behalf of the University before the Standing Committee and was not allowed to produce his evidence by way of defence.

(3.) THE relevant provisions, which prescribe the procedure to be followed by the University, in case where candidates were alleged to have used unfair means in connection with the University examinations, are contained in Ordinance 152 of the University and after the Centre Superintendent referred such a case to the University the following procedure was to be followed according to Clause (vii) of Ordinance 152: