Allahabad High Court
Rajiv Ratna Shukla And Anr. vs University Of Allahabad And Ors. on 18 July, 1986
Equivalent citations: AIR1987ALL208, AIR 1987 ALLAHABAD 208, 1986 ALL CJ 710, 1987 ED CAS 294, (1987) UPLBEC 193
Author: R.M. Sahai
Bench: R.M. Sahai
ORDER
1. Students of Chaudhary Mahadeo Prasad Degree College and Allahabad Degree College (hereinafter referred to as C.M.P. and A.D. College) affiliated to Allahabad University, have filed these petitions against decision of Examination Committee cancelling examinations held on various dates in the months of April and May 1986 in these colleges as the examinees indulged in mass copying. Although various submissions touching on legality of Examination Committee, lack of material for its decision, absence of any report of copying by invigilators or centre superintendents, were advanced by crux of the matter is, if the examinations which were held for fair and honest assessment of capability of the examinees to accumulate and retain knowledge stood vitiated because it turned into a farce due to resort to unfair means adopted by the examinees. Because if this decision of Examination Committee is correct then it would not be a fit case for interference in writ jurisdiction. Stress was laid by urging that part of examination having been held to be legal the remaining could not be permitted to be declared void and illegal. Absence of any inquiry and violation of principle of natural justice was also urged.
2. Copying in examinations at times even aided by those who are entrusted with responsibility of supervising actuated with self interest of threat to life and security is rapidly becoming a part of deteriorating social order. Assault on invigilators resulting in death is common reading in newspapers in examination days. Unfortunately even the Universities and Degree Colleges the highest academic institutions could not remain immune from it. It is indeed painful. But such unfortunate developments are becoming part of the social system. How else could this petition and vociferous arguments by the learned counsel maligning the teachers, the Vice-Chancellor, the Examination Committee and Flying squad of the University could have been raised. Attempt was even made to justify conduct of the students, their misbehaviour, etc.
3. No further need be said as the re-examinations having been postponed under orders granted by this Court the only option is to adjudicate upon if the decision of Examination Committee of mass copying is well founded. When flying Squad comprising of University teachers, etc. reached CM.P. Degree College on 23rd April, 1986 at 7.15 a.m. it found most of the examinees throwing books and answer slips outside examination hall. It detected 14 cases of unfair means and went to Allahabad Degree College where it found 16 students copying. It noticed several bags full of throw away material burnt down papers at both places. Therefore, it inferred that mass copying was done at both places. On next day, that is. 24th April, it again detected mass copying at C.M.P. College. Twelve students were caught red handed. The squad found better atmosphere in A.D.C. and detected only few isolated cases of copying. It found three students using unfair means. On 25th April, two students in C.M.P. College and four students in A.D.C. were found copying. It however, noticed mass copying in rooms Nos. 9, 63, 64 and 65 of C.M.P. College. These reports were examined by the Examination Committee on 24th April, 1986. It found that the Centre Superintendents of both the colleges admitted that large volume of unauthorised material found its way in the examination hall because there was no checking at the gate. The Superintendent of C.M.P. College expressed his helplessness as the teachers were not cooperating in the examination work; The Superintendent of A.D.C. did not complain non-co-operation of the teachers. But he felt difficulty because there were not sufficient number of teachers who could carry on both the jobs of checking at the gate and invigilation in the hall. The committee, however, resolved that the Vice-Chancellor, Pro Vice Chancellor. Dean of faculty and Head of Departments and Controller of Examinations will visit the centres and report to the Examination Committee. It also resolved that strong action including, if necessary, cancellation of examination will be taken in case of centres where mass copying had been reported. It further decided to meet on 26th April, 1986 at 4 p.m. to decide the action to be taken in such cases. It appears that the examination committee, instead of 26th April, met on 28th April, 1986 and decided on the report of the flying squad and the statement of centre superintendent that the examination held on 23rd, 24th and 25th April, 1986 in C.M.P. College and of 23rd April, 1986 in A.D.C. may be cancelled. The next examination was held on 2nd May, 1986. The flying squad which visited C.M.P. College in the morning found nine students using unfair means. It further noticed mass copying in each room, and the candidates were seen throwing books and other material as soon as they came to know of arrival of flying squad. It recorded in its report that the president of the Union who was also an examinee told that mass copying was going on every day not only in C.M.P. College but other centres including Senate Hall of the University. Therefore, the examination of those centres should also be cancelled. It is also stated in the report that an invigilator told the squad that in the very beginning some examinees snatched away unused answer books and they were helpless. Later on they were deposited and on such answer books 'B' was written which were found outside the hall. In the evening of 5th May, 1986, on checking of C.M.P. College the squad found that each and every examinee had book and written slips in their possession. It also noticed that on reaching of the squad the examinees threw away their books and written slips. In the morning of 6th May, the squad in its visit to C.M.P. College at 7.50 a.m. found that examination had not started and chaotic condition was prevailing. The examination did not start till 7-40 a.m. The squad again visited the college at 9.15 a.m. and found mass copying was going on. In its visit in the morning of 8th May. 1986, it found mass copying in C.M.P. in all the rooms. In A.D.C. 19 students were found using unfair means. In the evening of the same day when the squad visited C.M.P. College it found all the examinees having books and written slips in their possession and when the squad began to take books and written slips from the possession of examinees they created nuisance and abused the members of the squad. They further refused to hand over the books and slips. The squad noticed that the examinee whose roll number was 8569 abused him and the Vice-Chancellor. It is also mentioned that they were abused by the invigilators as well. They felt humiliated. The Vice-Chancellor also visited these colleges on 7th May. 1986. He found examinees at both colleges indulging in mass copying and their behaviour was such that examination could not be conducted fairly. In C.M.P. College he found invigilators were outside rooms leaving examinees to do whatever they wanted. He found floor of rooms full of note-books, chits and other material for copying and examinees talking among themselves. In A.D.C. he found same situation. When he contacted the centre superintendent he was informed that only three teachers had turned up for invigilation and it was not possible to conduct individual checking. These reports were placed before the examination committee which decided on 11th May. 1986 that the examination of LL.B., B.A., B.Sc. and B.Com. held at C.M.P. College on 23rd. 24th April. 25th April. 2nd May. 6th May and 8th May of evening shift should be cancelled. The examination held at A.D.C. centre on 23rd April, morning shift and 7th May, evening shift was cancelled. It was further resolved that re-examination of all the cancelled examination shall be held when the conditions became conducive. In the month of June. 1986 the University announced the days of re-examination and the venue was shifted from the degree college to the Senate Hall for law examinees and for B.A., B.Sc. and B.Com. to Muir Centre College. Against this petitioners approached this court.
4. Two things stand out clearly from what has been narrated above. One that arrangement in C.M.P. College was far from satisfactory. This was aggravated due to non-co-operative attitude of the teachers of the college who refused to participate in invigilation activity. How far they were justified as invigilation is a part of the duty and responsibility of a teacher who could not justifiably refuse to undertake the same merely because it was more strenuous or less remunerative need not be commented upon except expressing anguish and agony on apathy by such highly educated and responsible persons towards social responsibility. Second inability of the Centre Superintendents to provide for effective checking on the gates. It is amply borne out by their statements before examination committee. In a campus where examinations are held and the examinees are not checked from taking books and notes in the examination hall and the invigilation is farce due to absence of teachers what sanctity and solemnity could be attached to it. In such atmosphere even the best student could not have resisted the temptation of remaining behind the race. They by themselves were sufficient to cast suspicion on authenticity of examination. If in such circumstances the flying squad on arrival found books and notes flying from rooms then it could reasonably infer that vast majority of the examinees were copying. Much emphasis was laid by counsel on the vast number of students who participated in the examination. It was also urged that even though the Flying squad found mass copying in four rooms only on 25th April and could get hold of few examinees. 10 or 12 on other dates, it inferred mass copying which was arbitrary. It was vehemently urged that report of the flying squad was conjectural and speculative as it was well-nigh impossible for any squad consisting of 10 or 12 persons to physically have gone into every room and satisfied itself that each and every student or at least the vast majority of them must have used unfair means specially when examinations were held in twenty five rooms. Assistance was attempted to be derived from stray observations made in Km. Madhulika Mathur v. Gorakhpur University. 1984 UPLBEC 365 : (1984 All U 618) (FB) and it was urged that in absence of any report from any invigilator or Centre Superintendent about copying report of the flying squad should have been ignored by the examination committee and if it failed to do so this Court in exercise of his writ jurisdiction should quash the order as being based on no material or on considerations which were irrelevant or extraneous. Details have also been mentioned about the number of students who appeared on various dates, for instance on 24th April. 1986, 660 students are said to have appeared whereas on 25th April, 1986 there were 1210 and on 2nd May, 1986 there were 1900 students. Effort was made to demonstrate that in view of large number of examinees the detection of using of unfair means by few only could not result in inference of mass copying by flying squad or a decision by the examination committee to rehold the examination.
5. Mass copying has not been defined in the Act or the Statute framed under the University Act. It has, therefore, to be understood in its common parlance. What could be considered mass copying cannot be laid down with mathematical precision. It has to vary and has to be decided on circumstances. It may be copying by a vast majority or on a massive scale or in such large proportion that it was not possible to check it. From report of the flying squad which is corroborated by the Centre Superintendent of C.M.P. College it is clear that no effective checking could be done on the gates. It has not been challenged anywhere in the writ petition. What is stated is that there was a large police force and Magistrate posted in the premises forgetting that responsibility of these officers was for law and order, and not checking of examinee. Their presence, therefore, was immaterial for deciding if there was effective checking at the gates. It further appears undisputed that large number of notes and books were found outside the examination hall. That by itself may not have been sufficient but the report of the flying squad that they had seen notes and books lying in every room on their arrival cannot be ignored. The detection of only few examinees on these checking also is not very material as even if after having come to know that flying squad had come certain students either due to misplaced bravery or sheer foolishness, retained the material from which they were copying then that could not alter the general tenor reflected in conduct of others. If all this is examined cumulatively then it leaves hardly any room for doubt that the conduct of examination in general was not fair and even if large number of students were not found using unfair means the atmosphere was such that holding of fair and proper examination stood ruled out.
6. Even otherwise the Statute and Ordinances provide for an authority known as Examination Committee to look into and decide such matter. As the examination committee after looking into the report was satisfied that the examinations were not conducted fairly it would be unfair for this Court to interfere in writ jurisdiction. It need not be mentioned that a finding recorded by a Tribunal administrative or quasi judicial, body is a finding of fact if it is based on consideration of evidence howsoever meagre and insufficient it may be. The report of the flying squad coupled with the statement of Centre Superintendent was available with the examination committees. Even if another committee or this Court on the same material could have come to a different conclusion it could not furnish ground for interference. This Court cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of committee. It could quash the order only if it finds that it was based on no material or the committee ignored some material which if considered could have resulted in a different conclusion. Since the decision of the examination committee does not suffer from any such error it is difficult to grant relief to petitioners.
7. We are not unconscious or oblivious of grave injustice which might be done to some of the students, may be even majority because of refusal by this Court to interfere but we cannot ignore the deterioration in the standard of discipline of academic institutions. How this should be regulated or controlled should best be left to the discretion of those who are entrusted with this responsibility. If this Court starts substituting its own opinion in place of opinion expressed by authorities it shall result in chaos. It is well known that due to conduct of others even innocent persons suffer but the sufferings of few has to be tolerated in the larger interest of the society. As is usual in such matters it is only the few who are responsible but to protect the bona fide or the genuine if a decision is given which erodes the discipline and vitiated the atmosphere of the academic institutions then it is better to restrain and refuse.
8. Suggestion was made to distinguish between examination held in April and May. It was urged that even if mass copying was made out in respect of examinations held in May the same could not be said about April. The argument proceeds on misapprehension. It overlooks that decision of Committee in respect of examinations held in April is based not only on reports of flying squad but statement of Centre Superintendents.
9. As regards demand for enquiry and violation of principle of natural justice, suffice it to say that on academic disciplinary proceedings exception is made where proceedings are substantially fair or it is impossible to hold inquiry. Cases of mass copying resulting in cancellation of the examination fall in this exception. By its very nature no inquiry could have been made. Decision in Km. Madhulika Mathur's case (1984 All LJ 618) (FB) (supra) has absolutely no relevance. Concept of reasonable opportunity assumes primacy where penal action is proposed to individual. Direction to hold re-examination cannot be put in that category. It was not like of what happened in Gorakhpur University where examination was not treated as ineffective or vitiated. Ratio of that decision is that what was invalid could not be treated as valid for punishment without affording opportunity.
10. Principle of part having quashed whole should fall was seriously pressed in service. Reliance was placed on Km. Madhulika Mathur's case (supra). It was urged that this Court having found cancellation of examination of girl candidates of A.D.C. was bad, it amounted to setting aside of order of Examination Committee and holding that examination was legal and not void, therefore, same standard shall be applied to boys as Centre Superintendent had given certificate that girl students seats were mixed with boys.
11. In April, 1986 the members of the bar were on strike. One Rachna Singal, who was a student of LLB., III year from A.D.C. filed a writ petition that her result and result of other girl students was being withheld because of report of unfair means by other students of the College. The petitioner was permitted to serve a copy of this petition on the University which was required to file a counter-affidavit and explain the circumstances in which her result was not being declared. By the time the petition was listed for admission the strike came to an end. When the petition was taken up no counsel, on behalf of University, appeared. The Legal Assistant of the University appeared. The Legal Assistant of the University produced a report of the Principal of the College which stated that the girl students could be reasonably excluded from the boys who indulged in using unfair means. Since the report of the Principal was there and we were not apprised of all these various reports of the flying squad and the decision of the examination committee, we allowed the writ petition. We were not informed that examinations held on 23rd April, 1986 was cancelled due to report of mass copying. Some Superintendents appear to have given certificate now that eight, ex girl students seats were mixed with students. Technically both certificates are correct. But we need not say that the Superintendents or the authorities did not exhibit that responsibility which was expected of them. On ah application filed by the University that petition has been directed to be listed for reconsideration. But even if the order stands the direction given by this Court to declare result of girl candidates cannot vitiate the decision of examination committee. The Centre Superintendent gave a certificate that girl students could be reasonably excluded and did not deny the allegations that their seats were in a separate room. Nor it has resulted in discrimination between male and female students. Different result has come into being not because of any defect in any report or any decision of the Committee but because we were not apprised of the full facts. We do not think, therefore, that that decision can be taken to be a finding recorded by this Court that the decision of the examination committee was erroneous or illegal.
12. For the reasons given above we are of opinion that it is not a fit case for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, we dismiss these petitions at admission stage after hearing both parties. We expect that University authorities shall take immediate steps to hold the examinations to avoid any hardship to students specially B.A., B.Sc., and B.Com., in admission to higher classes. Parties shall bear their own costs.