Skip to content


Shailendra Kumar Singh Vs. Avadh University, Faizabad and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. No. 1394 of 1981
Judge
Reported inAIR1982All73
ActsUttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1961 - Sections 29(4); Constitution of India - Article 226
AppellantShailendra Kumar Singh
RespondentAvadh University, Faizabad and anr.
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
constitution - unfair means of writing examination - section 29 (4) of u.p. state universities act, 1961 - on recommendation from sub-committee exam cancelled by examination committee - examinee debarred without serving charge sheet - denied opportunity to defend - committee should record its satisfaction - reasonable opportunity to show cause is a must - held, petition allowed and university order with regard to debarring examinee quashed. - .....hence his examination for the year 1980 was cancelled and he was debarred from appearing at the future examination for the year 1981.3. sub-section (1) of 3. 29 of the uttar pradesh state universities act provides that there shall be an examinations committee in the university the constitution of which shall be as may be provided for in the ordinances. sub-section (3) of that section stipulates that the examinations committee may ap-point such number of sub-committees as it thinks fit, and in particular may delegate to any one or more persons of sub-committees the power to deal with and decide cases relating to the use of unfair means by the examination examinees. sub-section (4) of section 29 being material is extracted hereinbelow :--' (4) notwithstanding anything contained in this.....
Judgment:

T.S. Misra, J.

1. The petitionerwas a student of Bajrang Degree College, Kunda, district Pratapgarh. Theexamination of B. A. Part I was conducted by the Avadh University. Faizabad,and the petitioner appeared in the same.He was assigned a roll number bearing2055 for that examination. However, asa result of the recommendation of theSub-Committee constituted by the Examination Committee the examinationof the petitioner for the year 1980 wascancelled and he was debarred fromappearing at the 1981 B. A. Part I examination. The petitioner being aggrieved has filed the instant writ petition. Initially, he had challenged theaforesaid order in its entirety but at thetime of the hearing of the petition thelearned counsel for the petitioner statedthat the petitioner is aggrieved by thelatter part of the order whereby he hasbeen debarred from appearing at the1981 B. A. Part I examination and seeksthe quashing of the same. He also statedthat the petitioner does not now challenge the first part of the order whereby his examination for the year 1960was cancelled. We have, therefore, toconsider as to whether the order of theUniversity debarring the petitioner fromappearing at the 1981 B. A. Part I examination is valid. The petition hasbeen opposed and Sri S. L. Verma hasput in appearance on behalf of theUniversity.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also for the University. For the petitioner it was urged that no charge-sheet was served on him and he was not given any opportunity to defend himself; hence the penalty imposed against him in debarring him from appearing at the 1981 examination is invalid. We find force in the contention. It was not disputed by the University that no charge-sheet was ever served on the petitioner nor was he ever asked to show cause as to why the penalty in question should not be imposed on him. The submission on behalf of the University, however, was that the petitioner had reproduced verbatim paragraphs after paragraphs from a book captioned Vishwa Hi Prachin Sabhtyain' by Sri Ram Goyal while answering the questions set in the examination, hence his examination for the year 1980 was cancelled and he was debarred from appearing at the future examination for the year 1981.

3. Sub-section (1) of 3. 29 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act provides that there shall be an Examinations Committee in the University the constitution of which shall be as may be provided for in the Ordinances. Sub-section (3) of that Section stipulates that the Examinations Committee may ap-point such number of sub-committees as it thinks fit, and in particular may delegate to any one or more persons of sub-committees the power to deal with and decide cases relating to the use of unfair means by the examination examinees. Sub-section (4) of Section 29 being material is extracted hereinbelow :--

' (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, it shall be lawful for an Examinations committee or, as the case may be, for a sub-committee or any person to whom the Examinations committee has delegated its powers in this behalf under Sub-section (3), to debar an examinee from future examinations of the University, if in its or his opinion, such examinee is guilty of using unfair means at any such examination'.

4. So by reason of Sub-section (4) of Section 29 of the Act the Examinations Committee may lawfully debar an examinee from future examinations of the University, if in its or his opinion, such examinee is guilty of using unfair means at any such examination. Before debarring an examinee from appearing in future examinations it is, therefore, imperative that the Examinations Committee must record its satisfaction as to whether the examinee was guilty of using unfair means. To reach that conclusion it would be necessary that the examinee should be given, a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the charges levelled against him. If the examinee is not informed of the charges and he is not called upon to submit his reply to the same nor is he given any opportunity of defence it would not be legally possible for an Examinations Committee to arrive at the conclusion as to whether the examinee was guilty of using unfair means. To debar an examinee from appearing at future examinations is to impose a penalty which would affect his future career. The penalty naturally has serious consequences hence an examinee against whom a penalty is to be imposed must be informed of the charges and must also be given an opportunity to defend himself.

5. In the case in hand nothing of the sort was done. Admittedly no charge-sheet was served on the petitioner nor was he ever called upon to explain as to how he wrote his answers by making reference to the book in question. He was thus given no reasonable opportunity of defence. In fact, the order is violative of the principles of natural justice. It is also in contravention of the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 29 of the Act inasmuch as there is no finding of the Examinations Committee or sub-committee that the examinee was guilty of using unfair means. We have already pointed out above that an examinee can be debarred from future examinations only when the Examinations committee or the sub-committee, as the case may be, arrives at a definite opinion that the examinee was guilty of using unfair means at any such examination. The latter part of the order which is now being impugned and against which the relief has been sought for, therefore, deserves to be quashed.

6. In the result the petition is allowed. The order dated 6-3-1981, a copy of which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition, is quashed to the extent the order debars the petitioner from appearing at 1981 B. A. Part I examination of Avadh University, Faizabad. It is further directed that the University and the Centre Superintendent of Baj-rang Degree College, Kunda, shall allow the petitioner to appear as an ex-student in the 1981 B. A. Part I examination and in that respect allow the petitioner full opportunity to comply with the rules relating to deposit of fees and other formalities for appearing at the said examination.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //