AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Subramani, J.—The very same Petitioner came to this Court on earlier occasion in W.P. No. 17334 of 1995. In that Writ Petition, Petitioner wanted ids mark sheet to be issued for the examinations which he has written in April-May, 1995 for the B. Sc, Degree Course at Loganathan Narayanaswamy Government College, Ponneri.
The results of the Petitioner were published on 22.7.1995 and he passed in ten subjects and failed in Physics theory, Chemistry theory and Tamil Paper II. When the Petitioner went to collect the mark sheets from the College, he received a letter from the University to appear before the Syndicate Committee on 22.8.1995 to answer certain questions put to him; he explained that he has written the papers very well and he has not committed any malpractice. Thereafter, on 25.8.1995, the Petitioner issued a notice to the University calling upon to issue the Grade Sheets in respect of all the subjects. On 11.11.1995, the University passed an order finding that the Petitioner has committed malpractice in the examination conducted in April-May, 1995 and directed the cancellation of the entire examination. A reply was sent by the University on 21.11.1995 to the notice issued by the Petitioner.
Before the learned Judge, in earlier Writ Petition, an argument was put forward that the candidate''s previous performance was very poor and has scored only very poor marks. In the Public Examination, in some of the subjects, he has obtained good marks and that therefore, it has created suspicion in the mind of the University that it must be a case of malpractice and only after hearing the Petitioner, an order was passed cancelling the examination. When the matter was being heard by the learned Judge, entire file was also placed before Court and an argument was also taken that there is a considerable doubt even about the handwriting in the answer papers and there is a possibility of insertion of sheets.
Considering the rival contentions, learned Judge passed the following Order:
In my opinion, it will be totally illegal and improper to act on mere suspicion and surmises. The approach of the Respondents in asking the Petitioner to answer questions at the enquiry, in my opinion, cannot be supported as the correct procedure. There should be tangible evidence to show that a candidate had committed malpractice in the examination. On a perusal of the reply notice dated 21.11.1995 and the statements in the counter affidavit, I am not able to sustain the impugned order dated 11.11.1995. However, learned Counsel for the Respondent pleads that a fresh opportunity may be given to the Respondents-University to prove their case of malpractice against the Petitioner.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner opposes such a request on the ground that no fresh opportunity should be given to the Respondents.
I have carefully examined the rival submissions. While on the one hand, I had agreed with the Petitioner that an order cannot be passed on mere surmises and suspicion, at the same time, no student should get away with the impression that he can do anything and everything and walk away with the results.
In my opinion, this is a case where an opportunity should be given to the University to prove their case if there is any real material to find the Petitioner guilty. In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 11.11.1995 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the second Respondent for fresh consideration. In any fresh enquiry, the Respondent should give notice to the Petitioner and observe the Principles of Natural Justice. There should be no harassment and unless there is tangible proof to proceed against the Petitioner, the Respondents should not unnecessarily drag on the proceedings. In this view of the matter, the Respondents are directed to pass fresh orders, if any, on or before 31.12.1996. If no fresh orders are passed by 31.12.1996, the Respondents are directed to uphold the results of the examination held in April-May 1995, in so far as the Petitioner is concerned. The Writ Petition is ordered in the above terms. No costs.
No orders were passed on or before 31.12.1996 as directed by the learned Judge and therefore, the Petitioner again issued a notice on 6.2.1997 to restore the results already published and issue the mark-sheet. Thereafter, the impugned order was communicated to the Petitioner which is dated 26.3.1997, again cancelling the entire examination. The impugned order reads thus:
He is informed that after careful perusal of the answer books with Reg. No. 2200513, B. Sc. Degree Examinations held in April 1995 and the oral evidence given by him on 27.12.96, the Syndicate at its meeting held on 14.3.1997 after considering the observations of the Disciplinary Committee resolved that:
a) there is a prima facie case of foul play in the case.
b) the earlier decision of the Committee holding the candidate guilty and cancelling all the examinations taken by the candidate be reiterated.
Therefore, he is informed that the whole examinations taken by him in April 1995 stands cancelled.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the impugned order also suffers from the very same infirmities which were found by the learned Judge in the earlier Writ Petition and even now, there is no evidence to show that the Petitioner has committed malpractice in writing examinations. Learned Counsel also submitted that the comparison of hand writing has also been considered by the learned Judge and has given a finding that there is no material to come to the conclusion that the Petitioner has committed malpractice. It is further contended that the learned Judge has directed the Respondents to pass orders on or before 31.12.1996 and thereafter, the Respondents have no jurisdiction to pass another order ignoring the directions of the learned Judge, which is one without jurisdiction.
Notice was ordered to the Respondents and except the production of file by the new Standing Counsel, no counter affidavit has been filed. In fact, after hearing the counsel for the Petitioner, more than three adjournments were granted to the Respondents to explain their case. It was at that time, file was produced before Court.
It was the very same file that was produced before the learned Judge on earlier occasion. The very same answer sheets were also perused by the learned Judge. It was at that time the learned Judge found that it will be totally illegal and improper to act on mere suspicion and surmises. No fresh material is even now available except the answers given by the Petitioner when he was asked to appear before the Syndicate Committee on 27.12.1996. In the various answers given by the Petitioner, he has specifically denied the allegations. He has unequivocally stated that he has written the examinations only in the Examination Hall and only by using the papers issued to him and there is no malpractice. The other materials were already considered by the learned Judge.
An opportunity was given by the learned Judge to the Respondents to prove the case of malpractice against the Petitioner. The learned Judge also directed that the Principles of Natural Justice also will have to be followed while holding the fresh enquiry and there should be no harassment. The learned Judge emphasized thus:
...unless there is tangible proof to proceed against the Petitioner, the Respondents should not unnecessarily drag on the proceedings.
(Emphasis supplied)
After hearing the Standing Counsel for the Respondents and also after perusing the file, I do not find any tangible proof to proceed against the Petitioner. Why I am saying ''tangible proof is that all the evidence in the file have already been taken into consideration by the learned Judge and thus perusing the same, it was observed that it will be improper to act on mere suspicion and surmises. The Handwriting, various other pieces of evidence relied on by the University were considered by the learned Judge and held it only creates suspicion and nothing more. No other material has been placed before me even now.
When a student writes examination, he is entitled to know the result of the same and also to get mark sheet. Even though the result was published years back, the Petitioner is not in a position even to write the examinations in the failed subjects only because of the so-called enquiry. Even after getting an order from this Court, the Respondents were never serious to continue the enquiry and no effort was also made to get any fresh material if the same was available. The candidate is also entitled to see that the proceedings against him come to an end at the earliest, so that he can make necessary arrangements to his future course of action including his studies. Because of the so-called enquiry, the Petitioner has been harassed and is prevented from writing the examinations in the failed subjects..
Learned Judge has specifically directed that the fresh enquiry, if any to be held, must be completed on or before 31.12.1996 and if no orders have been passed by that time, the result already published will have to be upheld. Consequently, the Petitioner also will be entitled to get the mark sheet once no orders have been passed on or before 31.12.1996.
Even according to the learned Standing Counsel, the Court has not passed any orders extending the time stipulated by the learned Judge. The counsel submitted that necessary instructions were given by the University for filing an application for extension, but no orders could be obtained till date.
I do not want to consider those arguments of the counsel for the Respondents. Once the learned Judge has fixed the date for compliance and has also observed that in case of failure to comply with the time limit all consequences will follow, I feel that the subsequent proceeding by the University again cancelling the examination was one without jurisdiction.
In the result, the impugned order of the first Respondent dated 26.3.1997 is quashed as the same is illegal, arbitrary and perverse and I direct the Respondents to issue the mark sheet of the Petitioner bearing Registration No. 2200513 within a period of two weeks from today.
Taking into consideration the circumstances of the case, I feel it is only proper that the Respondents must be directed to pay costs to the Petitioner i.e. advocate''s fee of Rs. 3000/- (Rupees three thousand only).
The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, WMP. No. 8677 of 1997 is dismissed.