RADHAKISHAN Vs. THE UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition challenges the impugned under. Annexure 3 dated 15th of January, 1976 of the respondent No. 1, the University of Rajasthan by which it has cancelled the petitioner's examinations for M. Sc. (Previous) Chemistry second semester held in June 1975 and debarring him from taking examination in 1976. The petitioner is a student of the S.G.N. Khalsa College Sriganganagar. He was an examinee at the examination for M. Sc. (Previous) second semester which was held in June 1976. There are in all four papers in the second semester. The petitioner apparently took two papers without anything happening in the centre. The petitioner, when be was taking his third paper of physical chemistry was alleged to have been noticed by the invigilator that there was something written on the palm of his left hand. He it, therefore, alleged to have filled up the proforma prescribed by the University with his report. "The candidate had written some relevant material on the paper, or the palm of his left hand. The material was not visible clearly and he was not copying." The University has framed Ordinance 152 dealing with unfair means in connection with University examination Unfair means (sic)with on (sic) made on the body of a candidate or any substance which may leave relevance to the examination concerned. A detailed procedure is prescribed for dealing with the case of candidates found using or suspected to be using unfair means in connection with the examination in clause (2) of the said Ordinance. It is provided therein that when any candidate is suspected of using unfair means the Superintendent of examination, would conduct a spot inquiry and would refer the case to the University in which he is satisfied, that unfair means have been used. The candidate is also to be given a new answer book and the old answer book is to be seized along with the material recovered. The invigilator is to give his report in the form prescribed by the University. It is also provided that where a Centre Superintendent decided to refer a case to the University he shall record such evidence as is available in support of the allegation made by the invigilator. In case a candidate has denied the allegations contained in the invigilator's report or if the Committee otherwise thinks it necessary, it shall fix time and date for holding inquiry and give a proper notice to the candidate. On the date so fixed for the inquiry the candidate shall be allowed to be present in person. The evidence of the invigilator and such other persons will be recorded by the Committee is the presence of candidate and he is also allowed to put questions to such witness and also to summon any other witness or document in his defence. This report and recommendation of the Committee are to be placed before the Syndicate which shall be the final authority to take necessary action as it may think necessary in each case. The remarks of the Centre Superintendent on the form are to the effect. "The student had written a line on two on the palm of his left hand. The material was also not very legible. He was not found copying from the material." On the receipt of this report, the Registrar of the University sent a communication dated 11th of June, 1976 to the petitioner informing him that from the report of the invigilator and the Centre Superintendent his guilt was quite clear but yet an opportunity was being given to him to submit his defence if any The petitioner in reply to the show cause notice sent a latter dated 4th July, 1975 in which be denied that he had adopted any unfair means. The explanation for the ink patches on the left palm given by him was that as he put his left hand on the table and because of the hotness in the examination hall the sweat was released from his left hand and some ink spots were present on the table and hence the ink spots were spread on the left hand. He admitted that a copy was taken away from him and a pew answer book was given to him but maintained that he had attempted the same questions on that new answer -book He denied that he had refused to sign any papers or was asked to sign any and denied any statement of charge levelled against him. He suggested that this fact can be got verified from the other students who appeared in the examination on the same day. As it was not clear from the reply filed by the University, the counsel for the University placed before me the original answer books and the other material dealing with the case against the petitioner, at the stage when it was dealt with by the University It appears that the matter was referred to the Head Examiner who was of the opinion that after examining the answer books be did not find any difference in answers in the two answer -books, namely, which had been attempted earlier and the other which was given afresh to the petitioner. In the opinion of the Head Examiner the student did not get any advantage of writing some material on the palm of his hand. Though all this material was placed before the Standing Committee it appears that they did not consider it necessary to hold any inquiry or to call the petitioner for further examination and pass the impugned order cancelling the petitioner's examination of 1975 and also debarring him from taking the examination in 1976. A look at the Regulation shows that unfair means under O. 152(c) can only arise of there is anything written on the body of a candidate which may have relevance to the examination concerned It is no doubt true that the invigilator had stated in his report that the candidate had written some relevant material on the paper, on the palm of his left hand. But this fact of relevancy was not mentioned by the Centre Superintendent at all. Both the invigilator and the Centre Superintendent were agreed that the material was not visible clearly and the student was not copying from that. It appears to me amazing that having definitely stated that the material was not visible how it could be said that nevertheless the material was relevant to the examination. There is no doubt that whether anything found written on the palm was relevant to the examination which was being held on that day was to be found as a positive fact and cannot be based on sheer conjectures and surmised. In view of the definite opinion given by both the officials that the material was not visible there could obviously be not finding that the material was relevant to the subject matter of the examination of that day. Even the report of the Head Examiner seems to suggest that the questions attempted on the first answer book and the second were not different which presumably may show that the candidate had knowledge of those questions apart from what is said to have been written on the palm of his hand which obviously could not have contained much of a material to be used in the answer book. Be that as it may, the real infirmity in the impugned orders that when the petitioner had categorically denied the allegation that he refused to sign or was asked to sign any papers or to give any statement on the charges, it was apparent that he was taking stand contrary to the certificate alleged to have been given by the invigilator that the candidate had refused to give any written statement. In that view it was incumbent on the University authorities as provided in O. 152(2)(vii), that if a candidate denies the allegation as contained in the invigilator's report it shall fix a date and time for holding an inquiry in the presence of the candidate and the evidence of the invigilator will be recorded in the presence of the candidates. In the reply much is made of the conduct of the petitioner in refusing to sign the proforma report filed by the invigilator or to give any explication on the spot. The suggestion being that if the petitioner was in fact innocent and had nothing relevant to the paper written on his left palm he should not have refused to give a statement. Prima facie this argument may have some validity but when the petitioner had denied that he had been asked to sign any statement by the invigilator the only way of finding the truth was by holding an inquiry as is mandatorily required by O. 152(2)(vii). It is thus clear that the action has been taken against the petitioner in direct violation of not only the principles of natural justice but of the direct mandate of the Ordinance itself. The result is that the impugned order cannot be sustained and has to be quashed and I do so. I may mention that even though the petitioner had submitted his reply in July 1975 no action seems to have been taken by the University with the result that according to the petitioner he joined college and went on studying in the college till December, 1975 when the University wrote to the college that as the result of M.Sc. second semester of the petitioner has been withheld (sic)ht should not have allowed the petitioner to join the college in third semester and it was thereafter that the petitioner was stopped from attending college. The result has been that the petitioner had been deprived of the result of 1975 and also was not able to take the 1976 3rd semester held in March 1976 As by my judgment I am quashing the impugned order by which the petitioner's result has been with held, I would also therefore issue a direction that the result of the second semester held in June 1975 at which the petitioner sat in the examination may now be declared. I hope that, if the petitioner in the examination held last year is declared pass, the University will consider in what manner it can undo the effect of its action in not having allotted him to appear in 3rd semester, by now permitting him to take the 3rd semester without loss of a year, as this step would only advance enquiry.

(2.) As a result, the petition is allowed as above, but with no order as to costs.