Narinder Singh vs Punjab University and another

The petitioner, a student at the Department of Laws, Punjab University, is aggrieved by the order dated August 9, 1993 disqualifying him from appearing in any University Examination for a period of two years. A few facts may be noticed.

On May 21, 1993, the petitioner appeared in the paper relating to the subject of Economic and Social Offences of the LL.B. (IVth Semester) examination. The Assistant Superintendent noticed that the petitioner was reading something from his hand. He consequently caught hold of his hand and reported the matter to the Centre Superintendent, the left palm of the candidate was got photocopied. The petitioner''s statement was recorded. He stated as follows :--

"I wrote on my hand few words while before (sic) entering in the hall for remembering purpose only but became out of my mind to wash it. My intention was not to copy it, but this happened only due to hurry."

A case alleging use of Unfair means was reported against him. Thereafter, he was given a notice dated June 28, 1993 calling upon him to appear before the Controller of Examinations on July 13, 1993 to show cause as to why action should not be taken against him under Regulation 5 of the Punjab University Calendar, 1988, Volume II. Copies of the reports received against him were also supplied to him. The petitioner has produced a copy of this notice as Annexure P. 1 with this writ petition. However, the copies of the documents attached thereto have not been produced. It appears that the petitioner appeared before the controller of Examinations. He was given a questionnaire. In reply to question No. 4, the petitioner made the following statement :--

"The fact is that I started studying early in the morning on that day as routine started remembering and wrote two or three points only for remember on that day I left my house at 8.20 A. M. on Scooter from phase XI Mohali unfortunately I met with a Car accident and came at 9.15 A.M. and entering the hall I went to toilet to wash my hands. But the Peon stopped me to go there. Then I washed my hands in the stairs where water was lying in the jug on Ist Floor enterance. After that the points becomes invisible from hand. I was at any intimation for any help from that and they were invisible in exams. Hall. I have not taken any help from it and it is wrong that I was caught reading from my hand as stated by Dy. Superdt. at that time, I have closed the question Ist at that time."

(as produced by the petitioner in Ann. P. 2).

He reiterated this position even in reply to Questions Nos. 12 and 13. He then appeared before the Committee constituted by the University to consider case of the use of Unfair Means during the examination. He was heard. After noticing the sequence of events, the Committee concluded as under :--

"The possession of incriminating matter written on his left hand palm in terms of Regulation 5 is clearly estblished against the candidate on the basis of Assistant Superintendent''s report and his own admission. The Committee accordingly, has no hesitation in holding the candidate guilty under Regulation 5 appearing at page 12 of P.U. Cal. Vol II, 1988 anddirects that he be disqualified for a period of two years from appearing in any University exmination, , including the examination, in question."

Aggrieved by the order of above disqualification, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Vice Chancellor. The Controller of Examination informed the petitioner that since no new facts had been pointed out, the Vice Chancellor was unable to intervene in the matter under Regulation 32.2. As a result, the order passed by the "Committee on August 9, 1993 was upheld. Aggrieved by the order of the Committee disqualifying the petitioner for a period of two years, he has approached this Court through the present writ petition.

A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent. The claim made in this petition has been controverted. It has been reiterated that the action is in conformity with the provision of Regulation 5.

I have heard Mr. U.S. Sahrti, learned counsel for the petitioneer. a two-fold contention has been raised. Firstly, it has been claimed that in view of the explanation given by the petitioner, it cannot be said that the petitioner had used unfair means during the course of examination and as such the impugned order cannot be sustained. Learned counsel has relied upon the decision of this Court in Yadhvinder Singh Vs. Punjab University, Chandigarh and another, and Anil Kumar v. Kurukshetra University 1991 (4) SLR 298. Secondly, it has been contended that in any event, the case is covered by the provision of Regulation 4 and not that of Regulation 5. This claim has been controverted by Mr. Ashwani Chopra appearing for the respondents.

It would be apt to notice the provisions of Regulations 4 and 5 at the outset. Regulations 4 and 5 provide as under :--

"4. If during a University examination a candidate is found having in his possession or accessible to him papers, books or notes due to inadvertence but which papers, books or notes could be of assistance to him he may Be debarred from passing in that paper as a disciplinary measure."

"5. If during a University examination, a candidate is found in mala fide possession of any material such as-

(a) Papers, books or notes; or

(b) Written notes on any part of the clothes wron by the candidate or on any part of his body, or table or desk; or

(c) Foot-rule and/or instruments like set squares, protractors, slides rules, etc., with notes written on them;

which is relevant to the subject of the examination he shall be disqualified from appearing in any University examination for two years, including that in which he is found guilty, if he is a candidate for an examination held twice a year."

A perusal of the above provisions would show that where the possession of any incriminating material is found to be ''inadver tent'', the candidate can be disqualified from passing''in the particular paper but in a case where the possession of the incriminating material is found to be ''mala fide'', he can be disqualified from appearing in any University examination for two years, including that in which he is found guilty.

The primary question that arises for consideration is -- Was the action of the petitioner ''inadvertent'' or ''mala fide''? A perusal of his statement before the Centre Superintendent shows that he had admittedly written few words on his hand "before entering the hall..... When he appeared before the Controller of Examinations on July 13, 1993, the petitioner admitted that the material found in his possession was relevant to the subject, but tried to substantially improve upon his original statement and trotted out a new story. It was stated that he had written two or three points on has hand. He had left the house at 8.2.0 a.m. on scootar. He had met with a car accident and had reached the examination hall at about 9.15 a.m. He had gone to the toilet to wash bis hand. He was stopped by the peon. He washed his hands by using water lying in a Jug. After that, the points had become invisible. A perusal of the two statements brings out a clear effort to improve upon the first statement, since the petitioner''s statement beforee the Centre Superintendent was the one made by him immediately after he was caught, it is in all likelihood to promote and correct version of the actual facts. A perusal of this statement shows that he had admittedly written something on his hand before entering the hall. Even though the petitioner has stated that his intention was not to copy from it, but the fact remains that immediately prior to his entering the hall, the petitioner had made a note of certain points on his hand. There is no evidence to show that it was due to inadvertence. In fact, the action of the petitioner in making a note on his band immediately before entering the hall is symbolic of his mala fides. This being the position, it is clear that the petitioner had violated the provision of Regulation 5 which inter alia makes possession of material such as "written notes on any part of the clothes worn by the candidate or on any part of his body", as punishable.

In view of the above it is clear that the case is squarely covered by the provision of Regulation 5. Regulation 4 cannot be invoked by the petitioner. Still further it is equally clear that it was not an act of innocence, but a culpable effort to use the material during the course of examination. The note made on the hand being admittedly relevant to the paper, the action of the University is unassailable;

As for the two decisions, referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it may be mentioned that the actual position is entirely distinguishable. Therein the candidate had not been found to have made any different statements at different times. The prevaricating attitude of the petitioner as evident in this case was totally lacking in the two cases. These decisions were given on the peculiar facts of those cases. Consequently, the petitioner cannot derive any benefit therefrom.

Mr. Sahni, learned counsel for the petitioner, prays that the punishment may be reduced. The evil of adopting unfair means during the course of examination is rampant. It needs to be curbed with a firm hand. The action of the University is in strict conformity with the provisions of Regulation 5. The conduct of the petitioner in trying to improve upon this earliest statement shows that he is not repentant and, thus, calls for non compassion. Consequently no case for reduction of punishment is made out.

The writ petition is wholly lacking in merit. It is dismissed. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is a student, there will be no order as to costs.

Petition dismissed.