Bikramjit Singh etc. vs Guru Nanak Dev University etc.

G.R. Majithia, J.—This judgment disposes of Civil Writ Petition No. 13246 of 1989 and Civil Writ Petition No. 12913 of 1989, since common questions of law and facts arise for determination therein. I have referred to the facts as given in the pleadings in Civil Writ Petition No. 13246 of 1989 The petitioners were students of B. A. Part III in Lyallpur Khalsa College, Jalandhar, in the year 1988 -89 and appeared in the annual examination held by respondent No. 1. They received an intimation from respondent No. 1 to appear before the Standing Committee dealing with the cases of use of unfair means in the University examinations on August 29, 1989, to defend themselves since they have beets charged of the use of unfair means alongwith other candidates while appearing in T. D. C. Part III examination held in April, 1989, in Economics paper on April 24, 1989. Alongwith the notice, they also received an extract from the report of the Subject Expert which reads as under :

"I have gone through the answer books carefully. It seems that the question No. 1 which is objective type question worth 20 marks has been copied by most of the students. Some students have done well in the other questions also and they can be given the benefit of doubt. Some other students have got. 20 marks out of 20 in the first question whereas have scored very low marks in other questions, such students have clearly copied the first question."

The petitioners appeared before the standing Committee and denied the charge of unfair means in !he examination hall in Economies paper on April 21, 1989. Vide notification dated September 12, 1989, the petitioners were informed that they had been disqualified for appearing in any examination for one year under Ordinance 10(j) read with Ordinances 11 and 13 of Guru Nanak Dev University Ordinances. The petitioners maintain it at the order disqualifying them from appearing in any examination under Ordinance 10(j) is a colourable exercise of power and is based upon no evidence.

Written statement has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and (sic). It is stated therein that Flying Squad consisting of Dr. M. S. Amrit, Dr R S. Tak and Dr. M. D. Singh visited Lyallpur Khalsa College, Jalandhar, Centre No. 24 on April 24, 1989, and submitted a report that the candidates appearing in the examination in the Economics paper were using unfair means during the course of examination and the members of the Flying Squad were thereatened by the outsiders not to make any case against any candidate. The Flying Squad recommended that the Economics paper of the examinees be got scrutinised from the Subject Expert. This recommendation was accepted and respondent No. 1 appointed Dr. R. S Bawa, Head of the Department of Economics, to scrutinise the answer books of 65 candidates who had appeared in this paper. The Subject Expert after scrutiny of the answer books gave the opinion that 21 candidates had copied their answers to question No. 1 while other 44 candidates examinees were given benefit of doubt and were exonerated After the receipt of the report of the Subject Expert, the University authorities framed charges against the aforesaid 21 examinees under Ordinance 10(j) read with Ordinances 11 and 13 of the Guru Nanak Dev University Ordinance and referred the case to the Standing Committee. Show cause notices were served upon the defaulting candidates and they were asked to appear before the Standing Committee on August 29, 1989, and submit their replies. Alongwith the show cause notice, an extract of the report of the Subject Expert was supplied to the defaulting candidates. The Standing Committee gave the benefit of doubt to 10 candidates. However, in the case of the remaining 11 candidates, the Standing Committee found that their performance in other questions was very poor and as such opined that they had taken extraneous help while answering question No. 1 and they were help guilty under Ordinance 10(j) read with Ordinances 11 and 13 of the Guru Nanak Dev University Ordinances.

I have gone through the order of the Standing Committee dated August 29, 1989. A perusal of the same indicates that the Standing Committee did not rely upon the report of the Subject Expert with regard to the examinees appearing under roll Nos. 76335, 76336, 76338, 76354 76297, 76298, (sic), 76421, 76422 and 76423 on the ground that the Subject Expert had stated that these examinees had secured 20 marks out, of 20 marks in question No. 1 while in fact they secured 16 to 18 marks The report of the Subject Expert being factually incorrect and on that basis the Unfair Means Committee gave them the benefit of this contradiction. The petitioners in these writ petitions appeared in the examination under roll Nos. 76330, 76331, 76332, 76333, 76343, 76344, 76345, 76347. 76348, 76349 and 76153 and they had obtained 20 marks out of 20 marks in question No. 1. In other questions, their performance was found to be poor and on that basis, the Unfair Means Committee found that these examinees are guilty of misconduct under Ordinance 10(j) read with Ordinances 11 and 18 of the Guru Nanak Dev University Ordinances. The conclusion arrived at by the Unfair Means Committee that these examinees are guilty of misconduct for use of unfair means is not based upon any evidence. Merely because the candidates could not secure good marks in other questions, it could not be assumed that the petitioners had used unfair means while solving question No. 1. The Committee has acted on assumptions which is not permissible. A quasi judicial authority is expected to act fairly and not atbitrarily or in a capricious manner. The order must be based on reasons of fact. There was absolutely no material before it to come to the conclusion that the examinees had used unfair means in the examination. The extract of the report of the Subject Expert which was supplied to the petitioners is based upon subjective satisfaction and be reasons have been given by him to arrive at the conclusion that the students have taken help from some source while solving question No. 1 of the Economics paper,

Ordinances 10(j), 11(b) and 18 read as under :-

"10. The use of unfair means in, or in relation to. the examination shall include the following acts or omissions on the part of the candidate, viz :

(j) receiving help or attempting to receive help for answering the question paper from any source in any manner, inside or outside the examination hall "

"11.1 A candidate found guilty of committing any one or more of the offences under Ordinance 10 supra shall be disqualified from appearing in any examination of the University for the peried specified as under :

(b) For offences under disqualification Clauses (a), (d), (c), for a period (g), (h), (j), (k) of not less (m), (w) and (y) than two years."

A person who is found guilty of committing an offence under these Ordinances but is not a candidate for any examination, shall be dealt with as under :

(a) In the case of a teacher or a person connected with an institution, his conduct shall be reported to the Massaging Body of the Institution or the Government in the case of a Government institution ; and he shall be debarred from any remunerative job in the University.

(b) The Vice Chancellor may hand over the case to the Police If it discloses commission of a criminal offence."

Clause (j) of Ordinance 10 says that if the answer bock of the candidate shows or it is otherwise established that he had received or attempted to receive help from any source in any manner, or has given help or attempted to give help to any candidate from any source, he shall be disqualified from appearing in examination for a period of not less than two years. It is not the case of the respondent that the petitioners while answering questions of the Economics paper had received or attempted to receive help from any source. The Standing Committee has not found that the petitioners received any such help. Ordinances 11 and 18 have no applicability to the instant case Some of the examinees, who were found guilty by the Subject Expert have been exonerated by the Unfair Means Committee and cases of the petitioners and those of the exonerated examinees are not in any manner different. The Unfair Means Committee has acted capriciously in holding the petitioners guilty

The learned couasel for the University submitted that the decision of the Unfair Means Committee based on evidence and after giving opportunity of bearing to the examinees cannot be questioned in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in support of his submission he placed relianco upon Kurukshetra University v. Vinod Kumar. (1977) 79 P L R 70 This judgment has no bearing to the facts of the instant case as the decision of the Unfair Means Committee is not based on any evidence but on assumptions which cannot be upheld. Accordingly, the order of the Unfair Means Committee and the resultant order of the University disqualifying the petitioners from appearing in any examination for one year cannot be sustained and are quashed and the Writ Petitions succeed but with no order as to costs.