Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
B. Sailesh vs Osmania University And Anr. on 19 February, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000(1)ALT95
Author: B. Sudershan Reddy
Bench: B. Sudershan Reddy
ORDER B. Sudershan Reddy, J.
1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition prays for issuance of an appropriate writ particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the first respondent in No. 581/BE/Exams MP/98 dt. 23-11-1998 as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the first respondent to publish the result of the petitioner enabling him to pursue the further course of B.E.
2. The petitioner is a first year Engineering student. The first year examinations of B.E. were started in the last week of August, 1998. On 4-9-1998 the petitioner was writing the Physics examination at M.J. College of Engineering, Panjagutta. It is his case that before entering the calculations on the answer sheet he was doing the rough work on his palm of left hand and also on the question paper in a normal manner. There was no attempt by him to copy from any material and he did not possess any prohibited material in his possession. The petitioner's answer sheet was taken by the Invigilator and his hall ticket was also seized. Consequently he was not allowed to write the paper on 7-9-1998. However, under the directions of this Court in W.P. No. 25358/1998 the petitioner is permitted to write the remaining examination. The petitioner is studying the second year class in the second respondent-College.
3. While the matter stood thus, the first respondent issued show-cause notice on 6-11-1998 asking the petitioner to show-cause why action shall not be taken for having committed malpractice of copying from the matter written on palms and on question paper. The petitioner promptly submitted his explanation on 13-11-1998 disputing the allegations levelled against him. However, the first respondent through the letter dated 23-11-1998 communicated its decision imposing punishment of debarring the petitioner from appearing at the subsequent papers of the first year examination apart from cancelling the result of the examination on the ground that the petitioner was involved in malpractice case. It is that order which is questioned in this writ petition.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri V. Srinivas submits that the impugned proceedings suffer from total non-application of mind by the authority concerned. It is submitted that the respondents have failed to take into consideration the explanation submitted by the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not violated any of the regulations framed under Ordinance No. 7 relating to conduct of examination by the University.
5. In the counter-affidavit, it is inter alia stated that the reply to the show-cause submitted by the petitioner was considered along with the report of the Chief Superintendent and only after appreciating the entire material on record and facts and circumstances of the case, the five-member committee comprising of four Heads of Departments and the Chairman of Board of Studies gave a unanimous finding that the petitioner indulged in malpractice and imposed a punishment. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner was caught redhanded while copying the material written on the palm and the question paper.
6. The impugned proceedings dated 23-11-1998 communicated to the petitioner is a cyclostyled one relating to altogether seven candidates. As against the name of the petitioner, it is written that "shall be debarred from appearing at the subsequent papers of the Exam. apart from cancelling the result of the examination in which he had indulged in malpractice."
7. I have seen the complete record including the report and proceedings of the committee which is again in a cyclostyled form. In the column relating to finding of the committee, it is recorded that "the committee is convinced that the candidate indulged in malpractice which he agreed in the letter addressed" and as against the punishment awarded, it is written as "all papers be cancelled in the semester with Hall Ticket No. 0598-646."
8. The proceeding itself would show that the committee had taken into consideration the explanation submitted by the petitioner. But merely appears to have altered the endorsement made by the Chief Superintendent which is to the following effect:
"Found copying from the matter written on the palm and on question paper."
9. In the explanation submitted by the petitioner, it is clearly stated and to put in his own words that "I was sitting in the first row of the hall. Throughout the exams, the invigilators were just in front of me. I did not resort to any malpractice muchless copying from the matter written on palms or question paper. It was only some rough work and rough sketch I have written on my palm and question paper. The writing on the question paper is mine and not of any other person. Thus the question of copying from the matter written on question paper does not arise. Even on my palms there was nothing except a rough work. It cannot be termed as copying." It is the case of the petitioner that he himself has scribbled something on the question paper in the examination hall and some rough sketch on his own palm. It is not as if he was copying from any other paper or from the answer book of another candidate. It is also not the case of the respondents that something is written on the question paper in the handwriting of some other candidate and the petitioner was copying from it. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner had the question paper even before entering into the examination hall and supplied to the candidates. Suffice it to notice that none of these aspects were taken into consideration by the malpractice committee consisting of four Heads of the Department and Chairman, Board of Studies. It is required to notice that Regulation 2 framed under Ordinance No. 7 defines malpractice including the matter relevant to the examination being written on any part of the body or on the clothes wear, or in the instrument wrapped etc., and the punishment provided for is debarring from appearing at the subsequent papers of the examination apart from cancelling the result of the examination in which the candidate had indulged in malpractice. It is required to notice that nothing shall be written on any part of the body which could be said to be a relevant matter to the examination. The petitioner in his explanation in categorical terms stated that it was only some rough work and rough sketch written on the palm and on the question paper. If the petitioner himself has written something on his palm in the examination hall, the question of copying does not arise. Another condition stated to have been violated by the petitioner is writing on the question paper and Regulation 7 says that writing on the question paper or other papers is prohibited with an intention of passing it on to the another examinee. The punishment to be awarded is "to be warned not to do so." Here is the case where the petitioner himself has written something on the question paper and the allegation is that he was copying from that question paper. It is not as if it was meant to be passed on to the another examinee. Even if it is so, at the most the petitioner could have been warned.
10. The record produced by the learned Standing Counsel would not show anywhere that the committee had gone into these aspects of the matter and arrived at any conclusion. The file would contain simply some endorsement made by the Controller of Examinations and the findings of the committee consisting of five academicians. There is nothing on record suggesting that the committee has even looked into the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Had the committee looked into the explanation submitted by the petitioner, it would not have recorded stating that the petitioner had himself admitted in his explanation of copying from something written on the palm and the question paper. The petitioner has never admitted such thing in his explanation. It would have been totally a different matter, if the committee was not convinced with the explanation and it could have arrived at its own conclusion by considering and properly evaluating the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Evidently the whole proceeding is vitiated for the reason of non-application of mind.
11. It is not as if the decision of the committee is not fraught with any serious consequence. It involves the career of a young student. It is true, as urged by the learned Standing Counsel that the Court does not expect any detailed order from the Experts Committee. It would meet the requirement of law, if the record discloses application of mind by the concerned. Principles of natural justice require proper consideration of explanation. In more or less similar circumstances, the Rajasthan High Court in Miss Anita Mittal v. Sukhadia University, Udaipur, , held:
"The instructions which have been issued to the P.M.T. Students and which are relevant for our purpose are Clauses 14 and 15. Clause 14 reads as under:-
14. "The invigilators, the Flying Squad and the examination Supervisory staff shall be competent to take search of any candidate to find out whether the candidate possesses any objectionable material. Refusal by the candidate to be searched would raise the presumption that he/she is in possession of objectionable material. A candidate possessing objectionable material or resisting search shall be punishable as per rules concerning unfair means."
15. "Candidates resorting to the use of unfair means shall be turned out of the examination hall/room and the examination shall be treated and cancelled as a whole. The Centre Superintendent shall be the sole judge to determine whether unfair means have been resorted to. He will submit the report stating full facts of the case to the Controller of Examinations for further necessary action." On the admitted facts the question is whether such action of the candidate of writing some symbols on her palm amounts to unfair means or not. Secondly, whether the action taken by the respondents is in consonance with the principles of natural justice or not. Clause 14 authorises the invigilators, the flying squad and the supervisory staff of the examination to search any candidate to find out any objectionable material. It further contemplates that refusal by the candidate to be searched would raise a presumption that he/she is in possession of objectionable material. In the event of possessing objectionable material and resisting the search both have been made punishable as an unfair means. Clause 15 contemplates that a candidate resorting to unfair means can be turned out of the examination hall and his examination may be treated as cancelled as a whole. In this connection a discretion has been conferred on the Central Superintendent and he has been made the sole judge to determine whether unfair means have been resorted to or not. He will submit his report stating full facts to the Controller of Examinations."
12. It is true that this Court does not exercise any appellate jurisdiction over the decisions of the Expert bodies particularly, the decisions taken by the academic bodies. But the action of the academic bodies is not immune from judicial review. I would not have interfered in the matter, if there was a clear finding by the committee concerned after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, even if there was any possibility of taking different view than the one taken by the committee. May be such a course is not permissible for this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But here is the case where the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not at all taken into consideration and the matter is disposed of by the committee by saying as if the petitioner had admitted his guilt, which is not correct. There is no such admission by the petitioner.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed declaring the impugned proceedings as Illegal. No order as to costs.