Munish Bansal vs Guru Jambheshwar University and Others

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The petitioner challenges the order dated January 29, 1997, passed by the University cancelling the examinations taken by him in May/June, 1996, and further debarring him from appearing in any examination till December, 1996/January, 1997. A few facts may be noticed.

The petitioner had appeared in the Entrance Test for admission to the Engineering College conducted by the Kurukshetra University in the year 1995. The petitioner was placed at serial number 2263 in order of merit. He was admitted to the course leading to the Degree of Bachelor of Technology (Computer Engineering) at the M.M. Engineering College, Mullana. The First Semester Examination was due to be held in December, 1995 January, 1996. On account ot''a strike in the University, the examination was not held. The examination for the Second Semester was due to be held in June, 1996. This examination was conducted in the normal course. Thereafter the examination for the First Semester was held in July, 1996.

On July 15, 1996, the petitioner had appeared in the examination relating to the subject of ''Applied Mechanics''. It was reported that he had used unfair means, Consequently, vide letter dated August 19, 1996, the petitioner was informed that "incriminating material consisting of matter written on one side of the handkerchief relevant to the subject of examination was found in your hand" and that "you copied question No, 2 from the said incriminating material in your answer book." The petitioner was informed that he could send his written explanation to the Standing Committee on or before August 23, 1996. He was further informed that "if you want to be heard in person, you may appear before the above Committee on 24-8-1996 at 11-00 a.m. in the office of the Controller of Examination failing which the case will be disposed of and finally decided after consideration." The petitioner submitted his written explanation. The matter was considered by the competent authority. The Standing Committee found that the petitioner was guilty of "resorting to unfair means/misconduct". Consequently, it decided to cancel the "entire examination in which" he had "appeared/held in May/July 1996 and in addition debarred" him "from appearing in any University examination for a period of one year i.e. upto and including the examination of May/June, 1997." The petitioner appealed against this order to the Vice-Chancellor. Vide order dated January 29, 1997, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-4 with the writ petition, he was informed that after reconsideration, it had been decided "to cancel the entire examination held in May/June, 1996, in which you appeared and further to debar you from appearing in any examination till and including, December, 1996/January, 1997 examination". (It appears that the examinations were actually held in June/July, 1996, and not in May/June, 1996.

However, the error, if any, is wholly inconsequential.) The petitioner impugnes this order and prays that it be quashed.

The solitary contention raised by Mr. Jaswant Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the examination for the Second Semester having been concluded in June, 1996, the result thereof could not have been cancelled in pursuance of an order of punishment relating to the use of unfair means '' in the examination held in July, 1996. It is only the resultof the ''next examination'' and not that of the earlier examination that could be cancelled. Is it so?

According to the petitioner, the provisions for punishment for use of unfairmeans as contained in the Kurukshetra University Calendar, Volume II, are being followed by the Guru Jambheshwar University. Rule 3 inter alia provides that possession of any written or printed material relating to the subject of examination shall constitute "unfair means". Rule 7 prescribes different punishments including that a candidate found guilty of use of unfair means can be "disqualified from passing in the concerned examination in full and from appearing in the next one or more examinations."

It is the admitted position that the petitioner had to appear in the First Semester Examination inDecember, 1995/January, 1996. He would have appeared in the next examination relating to the Second Semester in June, 1996. On account of a strike in the University office, as the petitioner alleges, the First Semester Examination was not held in December, 1995/January, 1996. It was actually held in July, 1996. The petitioner was caught using unfair means. It was found that he had copied from the material in his possession. Thus, he was liable to be "disqualified from passing in the concerned examination in the full and from appearing in the next one or more examinations". In other words, the petitioner could be disqualified from passing the First Semester and from appearing in the next one or more examinations i.e. the Second and Third Semester Examinations etc. Even if the provision is strictly construed, the cancellation of the result of the Second Semester Examination in not in violation of the Rule.

Mr. Jain Submitted that the petitioner had already completed the 2nd Semester Examination before the day on which he had allegedly used unfair means. Thus, the Second Semester Examination could not be treated as the ''next'' examination.

The contention cannot be accepted. ''Next'' does not only mean ''succeeding in time''. It also implies ''following in order''. If so construed, the Second and Third Semester Examinations were ''next'' in order. The result of these examinations could be and was rightly cancelled.

The evil of ''unfair'' means in examinations is spreading. It needs to be curbed with a strong hand. The action taken by an academic body or a university can be interfered with only when a clear case is made out. Not otherwise. The present case calls for no interference.

In view of the above, we find no merit in this petition. It is consequently dismissed in limine.