Namita Godara and Others vs University of Rajasthan and Others

Alok Sharma, J.—These petitions are being disposed of together as they agitate a common cause of action founded on common facts and law.

The petitioners are students of B.Sc. Part-I in colleges affiliated to the University of Rajasthan. They were admitted beginning academic session 2013-14. In the examination held following one year course of study in B.Sc. Part I, the result of the petitioners was in the first instance withheld on account of a pending inquiry with regard to the use of unfair means by them in the said examination. The petitioners were thereafter informed by their respective affiliated colleges of the letter dated 17.01.2015 under the hand of the Controller of Examination, University of Rajasthan that qua them the result of the entire B.Sc. Part-I has been cancelled. The reason lay in mass copying at the concerned examination centre in 3rd paper of Botany, B.Sc. Part-I found by the examiner and the Subject Expert and the Unfair Means Standing Committee''s consequent recommendation of 27.12.2014 as approved by the Vice Chancellor of the University of Rajasthan.

The petitioners obviously state to be surprised and taken aback by the decision dated 17.01.2015 and cancellation of their exam. They protest and state that the said decision is bad inter alia on the ground of denial of principles of natural justice, discrimination, contravention of statutory provisions dealing with cases of unfair means under the University of Rajasthan Ordinances, arbitrariness and injustice in taking action only against the petitioners and not the examination centre as also the concerned invigilators without whose cooperation mass copying as alleged could not have taken place. Equity has also been invoked as a ground to challenge the order dated 17.01.2015 for the reason that during the interregnum while the petitioners'' result for B.Sc. Part-I was awaited, the petitioners were promoted to B.Sc. Part-II, paid their annual fee, studied the whole academic year, were ready to take the B.Sc. Part-II examination, and at this stage could not be required to revert to B.Sc. Part-I. It has been further submitted that from the result of B.Sc. Part-I, it is evident that the petitioners had passed in all subjects other than 3rd paper of Botany in B.Sc. Part-I in respect of which allegations have been made of mass copying. It has been submitted that the representation to the Vice Chancellor, praying for a liberal view of the matter, sent on 20.01.2015 has been of no avail and in the event the Court were not to interfere, the petitioners'' legal rights would be negated and they all would loose a year being required to rewrite the B.Sc. Part-I examination.

Replies, opposing the petitions, have been filed. It has been submitted that as per University norms and procedures the answer-sheets of the petitioners relating to the 3rd paper of Botany in B.Sc. Part-I were sent for evaluation to an examiner on the panel of the University of Rajasthan with due secrecy. In the course of checking of the answer sheets by the concerned examiner, it transpired that all the 24 questions in 3rd paper of Botany of B.Sc. Part-I [five were objective in nature (i.e. (1) A to E), 10 were subjective in nature (i.e. (1) F to O), 5 were required to be answered in one word (i.e. (1) P to T) and 4 questions were required to be answered in short by the candidates (i.e. (1) U to X)], were oddly found to have identical answers even without a little change/variation. In the circumstances, the examiner was justified in concluding that he was faced with a case of mass copying. Consequently, vide letter dated 15.05.2014, he informed the Controller of Examination of the fact of mass copying in the 48 answer books of 3rd paper of Botany in B.Sc. Part-I and required needful action to be taken. It has been submitted that albeit on receipt of the examiner''s report pertaining to mass copying as aforesaid, the University was well within its rights to proceed under Ordinance 152 of its Ordinances, yet by way of abundant caution, the answer books were sent by the University to a Subject Expert for evaluation and further validation of the conclusions of the examiner. The Subject Expert on an independent evaluation of the answer-sheets in issue also concluded that a case of mass copying was clearly made out in the 3rd paper of B.Sc. Part-I at the examination centres in issue. The report of the Subject Expert was received by the Unfair Means Standing Committee in a sealed envelope. In the circumstances, with overwhelming evidence of the mass copying in the 3rd paper of Botany in B.Sc. Part-I, to ensure that the processes of the examination were kept pure, result of the B.Sc. Part-I examination of 47 candidate out of 48 candidates in issue was recommended to be cancelled. In respect of the remainder one candidate, as he was found to have copied only 12 answers and not 24 answers (as did the other 47 did) it was directed that for him only the examination in the concerned paper be cancelled. This was the candidate with Roll No. 145627, a student of S.K.S. Girls University, Sikar. The unanimous recommendation for punishment made by the Unfair Means Standing Committee was received by the Vice Chancellor for his approval and so approved. Subsequently, the Principals of Subhash Vidya Mandir College and Swami Keswanand Arts, Science and Commerce College sought reconsideration on the quantum of punishment. The matter was then again considered by the Unfair Means Standing Committee, but in the facts obtaining was rejected. The Principals of the Colleges were accordingly informed by the University of Rajasthan vide its letter dated 13.02.2015.

It has been submitted that the entire exercise carried by the University has been in accordance with Ordinance 152 of the Rajasthan of University Ordinances as the case of the petitioners falls clearly within the meaning of use of unfair means. It has been submitted that the punishment is not the maximum punishment indicating that the University had taken a reasonable view. It has been submitted that Ordinance 152 of the University of Rajasthan Ordinances, does not provide for any opportunity of hearing to the students indulging in mass copying and even otherwise the petitioners in the facts obtaining where their answer matched each others to the "t" had no conceivable defence in respect of the allegations and resort to natural justice would only have been an exercise in futility. It has also been emphatically submitted that no case of discrimination can be made out with reference to the punishment visited only with cancellation of the 3rd paper of Botany in B.Sc. Part-I in case of one of the candidate as he was found to have copied only 12 out of 24 questions and not 24 out of 24 questions--as in the case of the other 47 students. It has also been denied that no action has been taken against the examination centre/s and it has been submitted that penalty of Rs. 21,000/- each with a warning for future was imposed on the concerned examination centre/s.

Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the respondents-University.

Purity of the examination process cannot be over emphasised as aside of the moral aspect of the matter it also ensures a level playing field between the competing students. No student without adequate hardwork and preparation can be allowed to cheat and unfairly steal a march over hardworking and honest students by securing a better work through the use of unfair means at exams. The question as to whether or not unfair means were used in the given examination is a question of fact. The determination of such question of fact is within the domain of the academic community and their experts in accordance with the procedures set out in the governing Ordinances. Ordinance 152 of the University of Rajasthan Ordinances defines unfair means inter alia to include giving or receiving assistance in answering the question papers to or from any other candidate in the examination hall. More broadly unfair means has further been defined to include cheating or attempting to cheat the University in any manner. Ordinance 152(3) provides that a candidate found guilty of unfair means can be punished inter alia with cancellation of the result of the paper in respect of which he was found to have been guilty or cancellation of the result of the examination for which he was a candidate or debarring the candidate from securing admission to a class or appearing at any future examination of the University for a stated period or finally any other punishment deemed suitable by the Syndicate. In the processes prescribed for dealing with cases of mass copying, it has not been provided that any opportunity of hearing be provided to the students accused of such mass copying and quite rightly so, as the cases of mass copying are open and shut cases determined by the examiner from documentary evidence lying in the answer-sheets under his evaluation. In the cases at hand, aside of a examiner, the matter has been independently also considered by a Subject Expert and then on the basis of the two reports by the Unfair Means Standing Committee. The Committee then recommended the punishment of cancellation of the whole of the B.Sc. Part-I examination which was on consideration confirmed by the Vice Chancellor. It may be in place to add that the Vice Chancellor has been authorised by the Syndicate to take action on the basis of the report of the Unfair Means Standing Committee as has been stated by the respondent-University in the case at hand.

It is well settled that the principles of natural justice are not straitjacketed and their relevance depends on the facts of each case. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, All India Railway Rec. Board and Another Vs. K. Shyam Kumar and Others, relying upon its own judgment in the case of The Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Subhas Chandra Sinha and Others, held that a case of mass copying at an examination cannot be equated with the case of particular individual who has been charged with adoption of unfair means at an examination, as in a cases of mass copying the conduct of all examinees or at least of majority of them is under consideration and in such a situation it is not necessary for the examining authority to give an opportunity to the candidates concerned if the examination as a whole is being cancelled. The Hon''ble Apex Court further noted that in cases of mass copying it would be "wrong to insist" that detailed inquiry be held into the matter and each individual case be separately examined for arriving at the conclusion as to whether or not unfair means by way of mass copying had been resorted to and whether the examination was to be cancelled as a whole. If at all there was to be parity, to my mind, it would be better resorted to by cancelling the entire examination of the aforesaid candidate with Roll No. 145627. But that is not the relief claimed in the petition, nor the said student impleaded. Parity cannot also be agitated on the ground of a liberal view taken in another case with lesser quantum of copying. As far as the argument of discrimination is concerned, I am of the considered view that reason enough has been set out by the respondent-University in segregating the case of 47 petitioners before this Court with the case of one student on the ground that while the petitioners had copied all 24 questions in issue in 3rd paper of Botany in B.Sc. Part-I, the candidate with Roll No. 145627 studying at S.K.S. Girls University, Sikar had copied only 12 answers out of 24.

There is also no substance in the submission of the counsel for the petitioners that no action was taken against the examination centre where the mass copying took-place. The reply to the writ petition categorically states that the examination centre/s has/have been visited with penalty of Rs. 21,000/- each and warned that they would be liable to be discontinued as centres in future in the event of the repeat mischief of mass copying in examination under its supervision or any other wrong doing. Besides, the inadequacy of the sanction/punishment against the examination centre/s and the invigilators cannot supply any ground to the petitioners in a proved case of mass copying on the opinion of the examiner, Subject Expert, Unfair Means Standing Committee and the finally the Vice Chancellor. It needs no reiteration that equality in law is a positive and not a negative concept.

Before concluding, it would be in place to refer to the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Director (Studies), Director (Studies) and Others Vs. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, where the Hon''ble Supreme Court has emphatically restated that the High Court should not ordinarily interfere with the functioning and orders of Educational authorities unless there is a clear violation of some statutory rules or legal principle (there is none in the instant case) and also that there must be unadulterated purity in examinations and no sympathy nor leniency should be shown to the candidate/s found to have resorted to unfair means in an examination. I may humbly add, even while following the above dictum of the Hon''ble Supreme Court that conduct in schools/colleges is an important building block in the life of a student and no student should be able to even remotely come to believe that wrong doing is beneficial or not adequately punished. The lessons which a student learns in school and college are fundamental to the equality of the citizen he/she will make. A liberal view of any infraction of law by the students more particularly one relating to resort to unfair means in an examination would only, in my humble opinion, serve as wrong messaging to the student community and buttress a culture of impunity.

There is, thus, in the facts of the case no scope for exercising this Court''s equitable extraordinary jurisdiction.

The petition has no merit and is quite baseless.

Dismissed.