MAHENDRA MATHUR Vs. UNIVERSITY OF UDAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MAHENDRA Mathur, the petitioner in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is a student of the University of Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the University'). He joined the postgraduate course for obtaining the degree of Master of Science in Chemistry of the University in the year 1976. The aforesaid postgraduate course is of a duration of two years consisting of four semesters. The petitioner has passed the First and the Second Semester examinations. The third Semester examination commenced from 10th April, 1978 The petitioner is reported to have used unfair means at the examination of course No. 611, Chemical Bonding held on 10th April, 1978. On 28th July, 1978, the Registrar of the University sent a communication to the petitioner, wherein it was stated that the Centre Superintendent had made a report on 10th April' 1978, alleging that the petitioner was caught red handed while using a small sheet of white paper in the examination of Course No. 611 Chemical of MSC Chemistry Third Semester Examination and that when he was asked to hand over the same by the invigilator on duty, the petitioner had refused to hand over the sheet of paper and that the aforesaid case of un -fair means was considered by the Results Committee on 27th July, 1978 and the Committee had decided that the Semester examination of' the petitioner be cancelled as per the Rules of un -fair means By the communication aforesaid, the petitioner was required to show cause in writing within 7 days from the date of the receipt of the letter as to why the proposed punishment for use of un -fair means in the examination be not confirmed. After the receipt of the aforesaid communication from the Registrar, the petitioner, by his letter, dated 1st August, 1978, requested the Registrar of the University that he may be provided with copies of certain documents mentioned in the said letter. Amongst the documents of which copies were sought by the petitioner were the report made by the Centre Superintendent regarding his case on 10th April, 1978 and the copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Results Committee held on 27th, July, 1978 The Registrar of the University, by his letter dated August 2, 1978 informed the petitioner that copies of the report made by the Centre Superintendent as well as the minutes of the meeting of the Results Committee could not be supplied to the petitioner. On 3rd August, 1973, the petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice dated 28th July, 1978, where in he denied that he had used any un -fair means or had attempted to use un -fair means at the examination held on 10th April, 1978 and submitted that the entire case about the aforesaid use of unfair means by the petitioner was absolutely false and fabricated at the instance of one of the invigilators Dr, G.V. Bakora, who wants to spoil and ruin the career of the petitioner, In the reply aforesaid, the petitioner sought permission to cross -examine the complainant and the witnesses against the petitioner and also sought permission to lead his evidence In his reply, the petitioner further requested that his result may be announced without further delay. It appears that after the aforesaid reply of the petitioner, the mark -sheet for the Third Semester Examination was issued by the University to the petitioner on 8th August, 1978. According to the said mark sheet, the petitioner has secured in aggregate 70 6% marks, in the Third Semester examination and in the paper of Chemical Bonding Course No. 611, he has secured 55 marks out of 100. Thereafter by notification dated 5th December, i978, the Registrar of the University has notified that the -Executive Committee of the University, at its meeting held on 18th November. 1978 had confirmed the penalty awarded by the Results Committee to the candidates having used unfair means at the various examination of the University held in 1978 except in the case of the two candidates (including the petitioner) named in the notification In so far as the petitioner is concerned, it was stated that the Executive Committee of the University had imposed the penalty of cancellation of the present Semester Examination. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Executive Committee of the University contained in the notification dated 5th December, 1978 the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the said notification dated 5th December, 1978

(2.) IN the writ petition, the petitioner has alleged that the aforesaid decision of the Executive Committee of the University cancelling the Third Semester Examination of the petitioner was arrived at in disregard of the. principles of the natural justice in as much as no inquiry what so ever was held for the purpose of verifying the correctness of the charge of the use of unfair means levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner has also submitted that the copy of the report submitted by the Centre Superintendent was not supplied to the petitioner inspite of demand and that in the absence of the said report, the petitioner could not even know the exact charge, which had been levelled against him. The petitioner has further asserted that the explanation which was submitted by the petitioner in his reply dated 3rd August. 1978 to the show cause notice had been found to be satisfactory by the Results Committee and that was the reason why result of the petitioner was declared and the mark sheet was issued to him on 8th August, 1978 and that the Executive Committee of the University was not competent to interfere with the aforesaid decision of the Results Committee. The petitioner, in his writ petition has also asserted that even if it was open to the Executive Committee so differ from the decision of the Results Committee, it was incumbent; upon the Executive Committee to have given reasons for so differing from the Results Committee and that in the present case the Executive Committee has not recorded any reason why it was differing from the decision of she Results Committee.

(3.) SHRI N.N. Mathur, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged the following contentions in support of this writ petition: