Skip to content


Suresh Kumar Vs. University of Rajasthan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 475 of 1976
Judge
Reported in1976WLN(UC)317
AppellantSuresh Kumar
RespondentUniversity of Rajasthan and ors.
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
university ordinances - order 152--candidate punished without inquiry for use of unfair means--held, order of punishment suffers from an infirmity. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in..........the committee by the impugned order 15th of january, 1976 cancelled ire petitioner's examination held in june, 1975 and also debarred him from taking the examination in 1976 order 152(2)(vii) of the hand book of the university of rajasthan provides that in case candidate denies the allegation an inquiry will be held after giving notice to the petitioner and the evidence of tie invigilator and cheer poisons conversant with the fact of the case will be recorded by the committee presence. admittedly no such inquiry was held in the present case. the stand of the respondent is that it was not considered necessary to hold such an inquiry. this plea obviously cannot be sustained because sub-clause (vii) of clause (2) of order 152 specifically requires that in case candidate denies the.....
Judgment:

Rajendra Sachar, J.

1. The petitioner is a student of M.Sc. (Previous) Chemistry. He took a second semester in June, 1975. He attempted the first two papers without anything happening in the ball. He was attempting the third paper of physical chemistry on 6th of June, 1975, when he was accosted by the invigilator's and his accused book was taken because according to the invigilator's report 'the candidate had written some material connected with his paper physical chemistry on the palm of his left band. He was not copying this material. The Centre Superintendent sent the case to the University with his remarks that the candidate had written some martial relevant to the paper on the palm of his left band. He was not using it for, copying and was detected during the course of close examination by the invigilator. A show cause notice was sent to the petitioner dated 13th of June, 1975 by the University calling upon him to show cause why action should not be taken against him for using unfair means in the examination. The petitioner in his reply dated 1st of July, 1975, stated that a tiny misunderstanding had created a wide trouble and pointed out that when he entered the examination hall there was nothing written on either hand and that it was only during the midst of first question that he netted certain rough calculations just to sharpen his memory, lest be should forget the same matter. But at that very time the Invigilator came and he 'accordingly gave copy to him nod started writing on the new answerback. He denied that he ever meant to copy or copied the material. He denied that he bad refused to sign. Rather his case was that be was never asked to sign any paper and that this thing could be got verified from other students who appeared. In the examination en that very day. The matter was thereafter put before the Studding Committee and the Committee by the impugned Order 15th of January, 1976 cancelled ire petitioner's examination held in June, 1975 and also debarred him from taking the examination in 1976 Order 152(2)(vii) of the Hand Book of the University of Rajasthan provides that in case candidate denies the allegation an inquiry will be held after giving notice to the petitioner and the evidence of tie invigilator and cheer poisons conversant with the fact of the case will be recorded by the Committee presence. Admittedly no such inquiry was held in the present case. The stand of the respondent is that it was not considered necessary to hold such an inquiry. This plea obviously cannot be sustained because Sub-clause (vii) of Clause (2) of Order 152 Specifically requires that in case candidate denies the allegation an inquiry baa to he held. The question at this stage is not whether the Standing Committee believes the explanation given by the petitioner to be true or not or whether the explanation will ultimately be found to be tenable or not. The question is the specification provision has been made to bold an inquiry in case allegations ere denied by the candidate. This provision which is in accordance with the principle of natural justice cannot be avoided by the respondent University. Admittedly no such inquiry held. It is patent that the impugned order by which the petitioner's examination was cancelled in 1976 and he was debarred from taking examination in 1976 suffers from infirmity and the same is therefore quashed & I do so accordingly.

2. The result is that the writ petition is allowed as indicted above. There shall be no order as to costs.


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