Sarwan Singh vs The Punjab University, Chandigarh

P.C. Pandit, J.—This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed by Sarwan Singh Bains challenging the legality of the notification dated 28th September, 1963 issued by the Punjab University disqualifying him for two years that is 1963 and 1964, for using unfair means.

According to the allegations of the petitioner, he passed his B.Sc. (Part I) Examination from Khalsa College, Amritsar, in first Division, standing second in order of merit in the Punjab University. He passed his B.Sc (Part II) Examination in fist Division securing 531 marks, out of 800, and was second in the College and fourth in the University in order of merit. He passed his Middle Class Examination in first Division and stood first in order of merit in the School. He passed his Matriculation Examination also in the first Division and secured 602 marks out of 850 and stood first in order of merit in the school. He appeared in the house-test of B.Sc. (Agriculture) Part I held in March and December 1962 and stood first in English, second in Botany, Dairying, Chemistry and in aggregate, in order of merit in his College and was awarded a certificate of Merit to this effect in March, 1963 at the time of the annual prize distribution function of his College. He appeared in the B.Sc. Examination Part I held in April 1963 from the Khalsa College. Amritsar Centre, taking up English, Botany, Dairying and Chemistry as his subjects. There were about 100 students in all, who had appeared in this Examination and the result was published on or about 6th July 1963, but it was indicated that the result of the petitioner would be declared later on. During the examination, no complaint was ever made against the petitioner and be was not suspected of using any unfair means. In the first week of August 1963, however, a letter was received from the Deputy Registrar (Examinations) asking him to appear before the said officer on 8th August 1963 in his own interest and at his own expense in connection with a confidential enquiry, failing which ex parte action would be taken against him. In response to this letter, the petitioner appeared before the said officer on the prescribed date and there he was handed over a questionnaire to which he gave the necessary replies On 28th September 1963 the impugned notification was issued, which led to the filing of the present writ petition on 30th November 1963.

In the return filed by the Registrar, it was stated that anonymous complaints were received by the Punjab University, including one purporting to be under the signatures of one Shri Labh Singh, Lecturer, Chemistry Department, Khalsa College, Amritsar, that 51 candidates of B.Sc. (Agriculture) Part I (Old Regulations) Examination held in April 1963, had employed unfair means during the course of the examination in English, Organic Chemistry, Botany and Dairying. The petitioner, who appeared in the said examination under Rule 93, was also one of those 51 candidates, who adopted unfair means in English paper during the said examination. In the complaint, it was, inter alia, stated that several candidates had copied from the same notes. Consequently, the answer books of all the candidates, including the petitioner, were sent to the Experts in different subjects for their opinion. The petitioner, whose original Roll No. was 35 and fictitious Roll No. 1005 in Dairying and 1403 in English, was also found guilty of copying answers to questions in Dairying and English papers from the same material as was done by original Roll No. 36, whose fictitious Roll No. was 1011 in Dairying, and other candidates in English paper. As a result of these complaints and the reports of the Experts, the petitioner was asked to appear before the Deputy Registrar (Examinations) on 8th August 1963, and on that date he was fully explained the charge against him in his own language and was required to answer the questions according to his free will. He availed of this opportunity and gave answers to the various questions and did not seek any further clarification. The petitioner never asked for any opportunity of any kind to explain his position with regard to the use of unfair means in the said examination. The opinion of the Expert in English paper clearly established that the petitioner was guilty of using unfair means during the course of the said examination. The Standing Committee examined the cases of individual candidates and after taking into consideration the whole material unanimously found the petitioner and others guilty of using unfair means in different subjects during the said examination at this Centre and, consequently, the impugned notification was issued.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no report of the Expert in English to the effect that the petitioner had used unfair means in the English paper and as regards the Dairying Paper, the Expert had stated thus-

Only two sentences in VII(g) are common with that given by No. 1011. As this pertains to a definition, benefit of doubt should be given to this candidate.

He, therefore, contended that there was no material before the Standing Committee to come to the conclusion that the petitioner had used unfair means in the examination. 1 he petitioner had a brilliant record and it was unthinkable that he would adopt unfair means in getting through his examination.

A Division Bench decision of this Court in Karamjit Kaur v. The Punjab University 1, consisting of Mehar Singh and Khanna JJ., after discussing the various authorities, laid down the following principles for determining cases of this kind:

The order made by an educational authority while dealing with a charge of unfair means against a candidate is not an administrative order but a quasi-judicial order.

The educational authority has to follow such procedure while determining the correctness of those allegations as is prescribed by the regulations or bye laws.

In case the regulations or bye laws prescribe no procedure, it would be for the authority to devise the procedure as it considers necessary to satisfy itself with regard to the correctness of the charge.

The procedure so adopted should be fair and not violative of the principles of natural justice. It need not, however, be the same as governs trials in ordinary courts of law.

The candidate concerned must be informed of the charge and an adequate opportunity should be given to him to defend himself.

In case such an opportunity has been given to the candidate and there is some material before the prescribed authority about the use of unfair means and the prescribed authority accepts that material and is not actuated by any hostile animus, the Court would not interfere with the decision of the aforesaid authority even if the Court disagrees with the conclusion of the authority.

According to principle (6), it was necessary that there should have been some material before the Standing Committee before passing the impugned notification. The case of the University was that the petitioner had used unfair means in English as well as Dairying papers. It is true that in the return filed by the University, it is stated that the opinion of the Expert in English paper had conclusively established that the petitioner was guilty of using unfair means, but the learned counsel appearing on their behalf frankly conceded before me that this report, which incidentally was not filed along with the return, did not involve the petitioner. It means, therefore, that there was nothing against the petitioner so far as the English paper was concerned. As regards to the Dairying paper, the report of the Expert has been reproduced above and from that it is manifest that in the circumstances mentioned therein, no case for the use of unfair means could be made out against the petitioner. That being so, it cannot be said that there was any material before the Standing Committee to come to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of using unfair means in the examination. Under these circumstances, following the Bench decision, mentioned above, I would accept this petition and quash the impugned notification. In the circumstances of this case, however, there will be no order as to costs.