Munish Khanna vs Punjab University and Another

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The petitioner, a student at the Government College of Arts, Sector 10, Chandigarh, is aggrieved by the order dated September 6, 1993 passed by the Punjab University by which "he has been debarred from passing in the subject of History and Appreciation of Art (Theory) under Regulation 4 of the Punjab University Calender Vol-II 1988 as a disciplinary measure". The petitioner had appeared in the final year examination leading to the Degree of .Bachelor of Fine Arts held in April/May 1993. On May 22, 1993, he appeared in the paper of ''History and Appreciation of Art''. The examination commenced at 9. A.M. At about 9.45 A.M., the Flying Squad conducted a personal search of some of the students. A small chit was recovered from the petitioner. On being asked, the petitioner stated that the possession was inadvertent, He appeared before the appropriate authority of the University. Finally by order dated August 12, 1993, the committee constituted by the University to consider and decide cases of students who were alleged to have indulged in use of unfair means, examined the petitioner''s case. After hearing the petitioner and examining the record, the committee recorded its conclusion in the following words :-

"The Committee, after perusing the case and hearing the candidate, finds that the candidate''s plea of inadvertent possession, right from the Examination Centre, is consistent. The possession of. the incriminating material not being in doubt, the only question (that) remains to be determined is whether it was malafide possession in terms of Regulation 5 or inadvertent possession in terms of Regulation

The committee feels that the pleas of inadvertence taken by the candidate consistently, right from the Examination Centre, may well be true. The committee, therefore, concludes that the case of the candidate falls under Regulation 4 (Inadvertent possession) appearing at pages 11-12 of the Punjab University Calender Volume II, 1988 and directs that the candidate be debarred from passing in" the paper concerned, as a disciplinary measure.

Sd/ Sd/- Sd/- (Sada Nand) (Mubarak Singh) (Prem Singh Prem) Chandigarh August 12, 1993."

This order has been quoted from the original file produced by Mr. R.D. Bawa, learned counsel for the respondents.

Ms. Madhu Khanna, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the action of the respondents is not in conformity with the provisions of Regulation 4. It is apt to notice the provision. It provides as under:-

"If during a university examination, a candidate is found having in his possession or accessible to, him papers, books, or not due to inadvertence but which papers, books or notice could be of assistance to him he may be debarred from passing in that paper as a disciplinary measure."

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that before punishing the petitioner under Regulation 4, it was incumbent on the Committee to come to a finding that the incriminating material "could be of assistance to him." Such a finding having not been recorded by the committee, learned counsel submits that the action cannot be sustained. On the other hand, Mr. Bawa, who has argued the case on behalf of the respondents contends that the very fact that the petitioner had a paper in his possession and it related to the subject, it must be assumed that it could be of assistance to him during the course of the examination. He has further stated that in fact, the University has obtained opinion from the Chairman of the Department of Fine Arts, Punjab University, Chandigarh and even according to the opinion, the action of the University is legal and valid.

The use of unfair means in different examinations has become rampant. It is undoubtedly a social evil. The High Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction is extremely slow to interfere with the orders passed by the academic authorities or the appropriate, bodies of the Universities. The evil needs to be curbed with the firm hand. However, it is equally important to remember that any order of punishment under the University Regulations has serious repercussion on the future career of a student. Consequently, it is necessary that the academic bodies conform to the provisions of the Regulations.

In the present case, the petitioner has been punished for having a piece of paper in his possession. Admittedly, the possession was inadvertent. A mere possession of a paper does not furnish a ground for punishing a candidate. The necessary ingredient for attracting the penal clause that the paper "could be of assistance to him." Unless it is found that the paper could have been of some assistance to the candidate, he cannot be punished. A perusal of the order passed by the committee as reproduced above shows that this aspect of the matter has not be examined. No finding has been recorded to the effect that the slip of paper recovered from the petitioner could be of any assistance to him. Consequently, the penalty as envisaged under Regulation 4 could not have been imposed.

I have also seen the opinion recorded by the Chairman of the Department of Fine Arts. It reads as under:-

"These words and terms are rather general but these are used frequently in the teaching of the subject."

The file appears to have been sent to the Chairman on or after October 13,1993. The date on which this opinion was recovered is not available on the file. Be that as it may, the fact remains that it was given after the committee had already decided that matter on August 12, 1993. Further more, even the Chairman has not Observed that the slip of paper recovered from the candidate could be of assistance to him.

The answer books of the candidate relating to the paper in question are also in the file produced by Mr. Bawa. A perusal thereof shows that in the original answer book which had been given to the petitioner, he had written about 8 pages. This appears to have taken back from him after the recovery of the incrimmating slip) from Ms possession. There after, a fresh answer book was given to him. Admittedly, this was given to him almost an hour after the examination had commenced. The candidate has ''Written answers to five questions. These answers have been assessed by the internal as well as external examiners. Keeping in view the fact that after the recovery of the slip, the candidate must have been reasonably disturbed and had lost almost an hour, he appears to have done reasonably well. In such a situation, it appears to be in the interest of justice that he should not be punished especially when his conduct has been straight forward right from the moment of the recovery of the slip till the decision of the case.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the committee in August 12, 1993 debarring the petitioner from passing in the paper concerned as also the order dated September 6, 1993 a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-2 by which this decision was conveyed to the petitioner, are set aside. The respondents are directed to declare the petitioner''s result immediately. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.