1. Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that he was a regular student of the Department of Laws(Evening Shift), Punjab University, Chandigarh, in the year 1977-78. He appeared in one paper of 3rd Semester, two papers of 4th Semester and all the papers of 5th Semester in November-December, 1977. The paper of Third Semester examination was held on 5th December, 1977, two papers of 4th Semester examination on 26th November, 1977, and 1st December, 1977, respectively and all the papers of the 5th Semester examination on 28th Nov, 1977, 3rd December 1977, 9th December, 1977, 16th December, 1977, and 21st December, 1977, while taking the 3rd Semester paper on 5th December, 1977, he was involved in an unfair means case. Ultimately he was disqualified for two years, that is from December, 1977, to April, 1979(four sessions), vide letter dated 27th July, 1978, copy Annexure P-2 Regarding the result of 4th Semester, the petitioner was shown as Result Later (Lower) and regarding the result of the 5th Semester, he was required to reappear in paper II Before he was declared as disqualified for two years, he appeared in one paper of 5th Semester examination and all the papers of 6th Semester and all the papers of the Semester examination in April, 1978. The result of the petitioner with respect to aforesaid examination was not declared.
2. The petitioner appeared in the 3rd Semester examination in November, 1979, and cleared the same. He thereafter, made a request to the University to declare his result with respect to papers of 4th 5th and 6th Semester examination vide his letter dated 25th March, 1980, copy Annexure P-3.In reply to that letter, the University informed him vide its letter dated 17th April, 1980 copy Annexure P-4, that the result of all the Semesters of Law examination in which he appeared during the above period stood cancelled. He has challenged the said letter and has prayed that the letter be quashed and the University by directed to declare his result of the 4th, 5th and 6th Semester Examination.
3. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents who have inter alia pleaded that after the petitioner had been disqualified by the University for the four semester session, he was not entitled to appear in the examination of higher Semester during that period and, therefore, his result was liable to be cancelled.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had appeared in the 4th, 5th and 6th semester examination before he was disqualified for two years. He has argued that after the petitioner had passed 3rd Semester examination in November, 1979, the university should have declared the results of the examination of 4th 5th and 6th Semesters and the same could not be cancelled by it. In support of his contention, he places reliance of Regulation 5 and 8 of Punjab University Calendar, Volume II, 1976, and on Krishan v. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, AIR 1976 SC 376.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at a considerable length but regret my inability to accept his contention Regulation 5 ibid provides that if during a University examination a candidate is found in mala fide possession of any material such as papers, books or notes etc. which are relevant to the subject matter of the examination he shall be disqualified from appearing in any University examination for four examination, including that in which he is found guilty, if he is a candidate for an examination held twice a year, Regulation 8 related to disqualification in case a candidate is found having copied or indulged in copying from any paper, book or notes of if he has allowed or is found allowing any other candidate to copy any matter from his answer-book. Similar penalty as has been provided under Regulation 5 has been provided in that case also. From a reading of the aforesaid Regulation, it is evident that the candidate is disqualified to appear in any university examination for four examination, including that in which he is found guilty. In the present case he was found guilty of copying in the 3rd Semester examination held in November-December, 1977. Thus according to the aforesaid regulations, after having been disqualified in November-December, 1977, the petitioner was not eligible to appear in any examination of the Punjab University during that Semester Examination and subsequent three Semester examination. As already stated above, he had already appeared in two papers of 4th Semester and all papers of 5th Semester in November-December, 1977, and one paper of 5th Semester and all papers of 6th Semester in April, 1978. As he was not entitled to appear in those examinations by virtue of the order dated July 27, 1978, his result with regard to those Semester examination shall also be deemed to have been cancelled by the University. The Regulation referred to by the counsel do not help him in this regard.
6. He also cannot derive any benefit from the observation in Krishan's case (AIR 1976 SC 376)(supra). That case related to Ordinance X of the Kurukshetra University Calendar Volume I. Which inter alia provides that certificate (b) will be provisional and can be withdrawn at any time before the examination if the applicant fails to attend the prescribed course of lectures before the end of his term. In that case, the petitioners examination form was sent provisionally and it could be withdrawn at any time in case of his failure to attend the requisite percentage of lectures. He did not attend the requisite number if lectures but was still allowed to take the examination. Later, when it was discovered that he could not appear in the examination for the said reasons, his candidature was cancelled. He filed a writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed in limine. The petitioner went up to the Supreme Court which observed that if neither the Head of the Department nor the university authorities took care to scrutinise the admission form then the question of the appellant committing a fraud did not arise. It is well-settled that where a person on whom fraud is committed is in position to discover the truth by due diligence fraud is not proved. It was further observed by the Supreme Court that it was neither a case of suggestion falls, nor suppression veri. The appellant never wrote to the university authorities that he had attended the prescribed number of lecture. There was ample time and opportunity for the University authorities to have found out the defect. In these circumstance therefore if the University authorities acquiesced in the infirmities which the admission form contained and allowed the appellant to appear in Part I Examination in April, 1972, the by force of the University Statute the University had no power to withdraw the candidature of the appellant. From the above observation it is evident that the matter before the Supreme Court was different and the observation were made in that context.
7. Before parting with the judgment, it may be observed that the petitioner has applied to the University to grant him at least two special chances to clear the examination from December, 1980 and onward. The application is said to be under consideration of the University. It will be advisable for the University to decide that application in accordance with the Regulation.
8. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.
9. Petition dismissed.