Karnataka High Court
Bangalore University vs B.V. Om Prakash on 8 August, 1990
Equivalent citations: ILR1990KAR2820, 1990(2)KARLJ365
Author: Shivaraj Patil
Bench: Shivaraj Patil
ORDER Mohan, C.J.
1.This Writ Appeal presents up a problem which requires the attention of the educationists or perhaps the immediate attention of educationists since the malice of mass-copying is spreading like cancer. With these prefatory remarks, we proceed to state the matrix of facts.
2. Om Prakash, the respondent herein, is III Year B.A. student of Bangalore University. He took the said examination and completed all papers excepting History III paper. That examination was held on 4th of April, 1990. It was cancelled on the report of the University Squad. Again on 7-5-1990, on the date of re-examination, the respondent went to take the examination with a fond hope of completing. However, as fate could have for him, the Flying Squad found mass copying including incriminating chits recovered in the examination hall. As a result, the examination on 7-5-1990 was cancelled.
3. Thereafter, the respondent requested the University to hold fresh examination in History III Paper. He represented that he never copied in the examination either on 4-4-1990 or on 7-5-1990. Should the examination not take place early, he will be losing one academic year and a precious year in his educational career will affect him with serious consequence. The representation was of no avail. Therefore, he came forward with Writ Petition 13965 of 1990 for mandamus praying that University be directed to hold forthwith re-examination in History III Paper in view of the cancellation of examination held on 4-4-1990 and 7-5-1990 for the year 1989-90 in the University of Bangalore. When notice came to be issued to the appellant-University, it took the stand that the Syndicate was to meet on 6th July, 1990 and action would be taken in the matter. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stood adjourned to 9th July, 1990. On 11th July, 1990, again when the matter was posted for preliminary hearing, the University wanted to file its objections. Accordingly, objections were filed on July 24, 1990. On that day, matter was taken up for final hearing by our learned brother Hanumanthappa, J.
4. In the objection statement, the appellant stated that under Section 15(2) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, the Registrar (Evaluation) of the University shall be in charge of the conduct of examination of the University and the matters relating thereto. Where, therefore, on two occasions viz., 4-4-1990 and 7-5-1990, there was mass copying, the examinations were cancelled for justifiable reasons.
5. It was not reasonable for the University to hold the examination continuously on a number of occasions since it requires a lot of procedural aspects like paper-setting, publishing the date of examination, printing of question papers, arranging papers to be sent to the examination centres, bringing the answer-scripts to the University, appointing valuers for valuation of answer scripts and announcing of results. AM these, apart from involving expenditure, would cause inconvenience to the University. Therefore, the University took the stand it is well open to the petitioner to take the examination to be held in September-October, 1990.
6. The learned Judge, on consideration of this, came to the conclusion that in so far as it was not the stand of the University that Writ Petitioner had not indulged in copying, to penalise him, would not be proper. Merely because it entails inconvenience and incurs expenditure, refusal to hold examination may not be correct. Further, University will have to take into consideration not only hardship and administrative inconvenience in holding the examination, but must have regard to the career of the student which would have affected through out his life. In this view, he discountenanced the objections on behalf of the University and allowed the Writ Petition. He further directed that re-examination be held within 15 days from the date of the Judgment viz., July 24th, without driving the petitioner to sit for supplementary examination as suggested by the University. It is under these circumstances, the present Writ Appeal has come to be preferred.
7. Mr. Vasudeva Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant-University, would urge it is true that the respondent might not have been indulging in copying, but where on both the occasions Vigilance Squad came to the conclusion that the students had indulged in mass copying, one student alone, cannot stand out and then say he did not indulge in copying. If these contentions were to be accepted, then in every case it would encourage students to come and require the University to hold the examination as and when they desire. This Court should not encourage the same. This is the only contention urged on behalf of the University.
8. Normally, this Court would be slow to interfere in matters relating to academic freedom. However, what we have got to do is to carefully note the facts and grant such relief as is necessary. As we said in the beginning of the Judgment, this malice of mass copying is spreading its tentacles far and wide. Unfortunately, though this problem is well known to every one, no concrete steps have so far been taken so as to prevent or arrest it. As a result, what happens is a student like the respondent, who has no slightest idea of copying or who had, in spite of best efforts, to refrain from such mal-practice, is penalised. It should also be noted he is penalised for no fault of his. The only fault is there are number of black-sheep among his 'community'. Even then, we do not know why the University or those in charge of holding examination are merely passive spectators. Thus, if the blame has to be attached to those persons like the University or any other academic institution which is in charge of holding examination, it is imperative and if it becomes necessary to take sufficient precautionary steps to prevent this mass copying. There is no use in crying hoarse that mass copying has taken place. The more important question will be has the University or those in charge of the education taken any steps to prevent it knowing fully well how it has spread like cancer? it is trite saying 'prevention is better than cure'. Therefore, we would expect the University authorities at least from now on to prevent this evil or mal-practice from recurring. In this instance, supposing student is asked to take examination in September-October, is it fair? Or is it just? We find neither it is fair nor just. Why should he be obliged to take examination as and when it suits the University when there is not even an indirect suggestion by the student that he had also indulged in mass copying. Therefore, we are clearly of the view that in order that excellence of education be attained, the University, instead of remaining quiet, must take positive and concrete steps to prevent recurrence of this evil practice and enable good and bright students to take their examination on the scheduled dates. Further look at the agony that would be caused among young students who, with all good preparation and fond hope of completing examination, may come to the examination hall if the examination is to be postponed because of mass-copying. Because he happens to belong to that particular group of examinees if he is to be penalised that would be again an important aspect to be gone into. From what we have said above, it would be clear that the direction issued by the learned Judge is not only just, jut also fully warranted in the circumstances. Therefore, we have no hesitation in dismissing the Writ Appeal.
Writ Appeal is dismissed.
Time to hold the examination is extended till 14th of August, 1990.