Allahabad High Court
The C/M Keshav Prasad Ralhi ... vs The State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others on 7 January, 2013
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR (Judgment reserved on 12.10.2012) (Judgment delivered on 07.01.2013) Court No.58 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 48018 of 2012 Petitioner :- The C/M Keshav Prasad Ralhi Mahavidyalaya And Others Respondent :- The State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Rajeev Misra Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Anil Tiwari Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.
Heard Sri Rajiv Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anil Tiwari, learned counsel for Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as ''the University') and its authorities respondents No.2 to 4. Petitioner No.1 is Committee of Management of Keshav Prasad Ralhi Mahavidyalya, Nardhua, Aurai, District Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi (hereinafter referred to as ''the College'). Petitioners No.2 & 3 are Manager and Principal of the College. Petitioners' college is affiliated with the respondent University. Students of several colleges affiliated to the University were found indulging in mass copying with the connivance of the college administration. Accordingly, 15 colleges were imposed fine of Rs.3 lacs each including petitioner college. The surprise raid was conducted on 30.03.2012. The result of B.A.-I, II and III year students of the petitioner college for the Session 2011-12 was withheld. Through order dated 07.08.2012 Examination Controller of the University respondent No.5 passed the order imposing fine/ penalty of Rs.3 lacs upon the petitioner college and cancelling the examination held in the first meeting on 30.03.2012. Copy of the said order is Annexure-VIII to the writ petition.
Through this writ petition order dated 07.08.2012 has been challenged and a direction has been sought to the University respondent and its authorities to declare the result of B.A.-I, II and III year of the students who had appeared in the examination.
The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned order dated 07.08.2012 mentions that decision had been taken in the meeting of the Examination Committee of the University on 24.03.2012 to impose fine of Rs.3 lacs upon the petitioner college on the ground that flying squad confirmed that mass copying was going on in the first session examination on 30.03.2012 in the petitioner college. The argument is that on 24.03.2012, decision could not be taken in respect of the incident which was to occur on 30.03.2012. In this regard copy of interim order dated 03.09.2012 passed in a similar writ petition being W.P. No.44002 of 2012, Shyam Mahavidyalya and another Vs. State of U.P. and others has been filed.
Learned counsel for respondent University and its authorities has stated that in fact decision had been taken in the meeting dated 24.03.2012 to the effect that if flying squad confirmed mass copying in any affiliated college then fine/ penalty of Rs.3 lacs would be imposed upon that college and it was merely a slightly drafting error in the order dated 07.08.2012 that it stated that decision in respect of petitioner-college had been taken on 24.03.2012. The explanation is quite plausible hence accepted. Along with the counter affidavit as Annexure-CA-1, copy of resolution dated 24.03.2012 has been annexed. In the said decision, action was taken against 11 colleges, which had been found indulging in mass copying till then. The dates of examinations mentioned in the said order were 17.03.2012 till 23.03.2012. Actually decision was in respect of those 11 colleges. Thereafter, it was mentioned that it was also resolved that for the annual examination of 2012 if any other centre was found guilty of mass copying then similar action should also be taken in respect of those colleges. Name of petitioner-college could neither be nor was mentioned in the said order.
Along with the counter affidavit as Annexure CA-2, report of flying squad has been annexed, which is with regard to the examination held on 16.03.2012, 28.03.2012 and 30.03.2012. Petitioner-college had given a representation which was duly considered in the meeting dated 23.08.2012 and petitioner was directed to deposit the fine/ penalty of Rs.3 lacs in three instalments (para-2 of the writ petition).
In fact on the basis of mass copying recognition should have been cancelled. However, a lenient view was taken and only a penalty of Rs.3 lacs was imposed which under no circumstances can be said to be excessive. In case of mass copying institution is directly responsible and its financial interest cannot be ruled out. Accordingly, I do not find any error in the impugned order.
In this case on 12.10.2012 when arguments were finally heard and judgment was reserved following order was passed on the order sheet:
"Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged.
Heard Shri Rajeev Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Anil Tewari, learned counsel for respondent University.
After the arguments Shri Anil Tewari, learned counsel on the basis of information received by him on telephone stated that in between 15 to 30th November, 2012 re-examination of all those students of different colleges whose examinations were cancelled on the ground of mass copying would be held. Shri Anil Tewari, learned counsel also stated that in case petitioner's college deposits Rs.1,50,000/- out of the proposed amount of Rs.3 lacs then examination will be held.
Judgment reserved.
It is directed that within one week from today petitioner's college shall deposit Rs.75,000/- with the University and thereupon the re-examination of the students whose results were cancelled on the ground of allegation of indulging in mass copying shall be held. On deposit of this amount of Rs.75,000/- the results of those students against whom there was no allegation of mass copying shall at once be declared."
Let the balance amount be deposited positively within one month from today failing which recognition of the college shall be cancelled.
The respondent University did something quite commendable by getting the examination centre examined by flying squad. Let this exercise be done every year. It is further directed that in case an institution is found indulging in mass copying twice recognition and affiliation shall be cancelled.
Writ Petition is dismissed.
Office is directed to supply a copy of this order free of cost to Sri Anil Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent University within a week.
Order Date:- 07.01.2013 NLY