MOHAN LAL SUKHADIA UNIVERSITY Vs. MISS ANITA MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against a judgment of a learned Single Judge by which a writ petition has been allowed setting aside the cancellation of the petitioner's candidature at the Pre -Medical Examination held in the year 1986.

(2.) THE petitioner's examination had been cancelled on the ground that she was found in possession of objectionable material at the time she was appearing at the Chemistry Examination. Admittedly, the alleged objectionable material was some writing on one of her palms, which by itself was unintelligable in as much as it merely contained the abbreviations of the chemical names of certain metals. This alone was held to be sufficient by the Centre Superintendent to construe possession of objectionable material in order to direct cancellation of the petitioner's candidature at the examination. The petition challenging the action has been allowed. The learned Single Judge has held that the report of the Invigilator and the writing on the palm were wholly insufficient to lead to the inference that the writing constituted objectionable material indicating any attempt to use unfair means at the examination. It has, therefore, been held that the action taken by the University, in cancelling the petitioner's candidature, was arbitrary.

(3.) WE are unable to accept this contention. The matter found written on the palm of the candidate which is reproduced in the Invigilator's Anx. R. 1 together with the facts mentioned in the report, do not make it more probable that the candidate had even attempted to use unfair means. At any rate, the possibility of the writing being innocuous, is a reasonable inference and therefore, the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge on this point does not call for any interference in an appeal. We may observe that it is not the case of the University, that the candidate had attempted to rub of the writing in her plam and it was thereafter that only this writing remained thereon. Had any such attempt to rub of the writing been made by the candidate, that may have been an additional circumstance leading to the inference of use of unfair means by the candidate. However, that is no body's case. In such a situation, interference with the conclusion by the learned Single Judge is not called for.