Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Vijay Kumar Meena &Ors; vs Sri Karan Narendra &Ors; on 23 September, 2016
Author: K.S. Jhaveri
Bench: K.S. Jhaveri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH
AT JAIPUR.
D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1277/2016
APPELLANTS
1. Vijay Kumar Meena s/o Shri Babu Lal Meena, aged
22 years, R/o Shriram Colony, Near Nagar Palaika
Uniara, Ward No.2, Uniara, District Tonk.
2. Miss. Kavita Ben D/o Shri Hari Singh Rajput,
aged 28 years, R/o C/o Shiv Nandan Singh Naruka,
Sheetla Tek, Uniara, District Tonk.
3. Sitaram Meena S/o Shri Chanda Lal Meena, aged
22 years, R/o Shriram Colony, Near Nagar Palika
Uniara, Ward No.2, Uniara, District Tonk.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS
1. Sri Karan Narendra Agriculture University, Jobner, District Jaipur through its vice Chancellor.
2. Sri Karan Narendra Agriculture University, Jobner, District Jaipur through its Registrar
3. Controller of Examinations Sri Karan Narendra Agriculture University, Jobner, District Jaipur.
4. Govt. College Uniara (Tonk) through Principal.
DATE OF ORDER ::: 23.09.2016 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA Mr. A.R. Meena for the appellants.
1. By way of this appeal, original appellants have assailed the judgment & order of learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge has refused to exercise jurisdiction under section 226 of the Constitution of India for unfair practice which has been adopted by the appellants. 2
2. Counsel for the appellants mainly contended that the appellants had been discriminated students which are from the other colleges which are referred at Annexure-8 page 19, whereby applicant No.1 to 4 have been given leniently treatment and applicant No. 6 to 8 have been treated discriminatory and on the representation made, the Committee vide its order dated 24- 25/5/2015, observed as under:-
"The review committee observed that the candidate had written subject related matter on her left hand (which she has also confessed) with the intention of copying. Therefore, the committee upholds the decision taken by the "Grievance Committee"
constituted especially for dealing with the cases of unfair means in its meeting held on 20.01.2016 which was duly approved by Hon'ble Vice Chancellor, SKN Agriculture University, Jobner and conveyed by the COE through Notification No. COE/SKNAU/Secy/UM/2016/1170-84 dt. 05.02.2016. There are 03 other students of same category in the above order."
3. Learned Single Judge while considering the contention has observed as under:-
"Petitioners had earlier approached this Court by filing a petition i.e. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3687/2016. The Coordinate Bench had ordered that the Controller, Examination of respondent-University should decide representation of the petitioners within a period of four weeks. In 3 pursuance of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench dated 18.04.2016 (Annexure-4) in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3687/2016, the Committee of the University decided the representation of the petitioners on 24/25.05.2015 vide Annexure-6. In the order deciding the representation, it was stated that material used for copying was recovered from the petitioners and after proof of use of unfair means was taken into possession, the petitioners were proceeded for using unfair means.
It is stated in the impugned order that the other students of various other Colleges were leniently dealt with, as they had written something illegible on their palms.
The University constitute of academicians and experts. They have to mould the career of the students. The University impart education and not only award degrees. Therefore, no fault can be found in the decision taken by the expert to cancel the examination the petitioners for Semester-I of B.Sc. Part-III.
This Court is of the view that students, who used unfair means should have been sternly dealt with, merely because other students using unfair means, have been leniently dealt with, is no ground to invoke Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Hence, no interference is warranted."
4. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that view taken by the learned Single Judge is just and proper, no interference is 4 required.
5. Even the Committee while reconsidering the issue has tried to distinguish the order and awarded different punishment therefore, Article 14 as observed by the learned Single Judge will not apply.
6. The appeal is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.
7. The stay application is also disposed off. (Banwari Lal Sharma), J. (K.S. Jhaveri), J. A.Sharma/7