Vijay Kumar vs Punjab University

The petitioner, a student of Law, is aggrieved by the order passed by the Punjab University disqualifying him from appearing in any examination for a period of two years. The facts lie within narrow compass and may be briefly noticed.

The petitioner avers that after having passed the Matriculation, Pre-University and Degree examinations in the first division, he did Post-Graduation in Economics. Thereafter, he joined the LL.B. Degree Course at the Law Department, Punjab University, Chandigarh. On May 1, 1990, the petitioner appeared in Paper II (Law of Property). During the course of examination "a piece of paper was found from the pocket of the petitioner.....". He states that it was only a guess papers. As he had got late by 10 minutes in reaching the examination centre, he could not take it out before entering the examination hall. The matter was reported to the Disciplinary Committee. After the grant of hearing to the petitioner, it held that "the candidate had been in mala fide possession of the incriminating material." It thus found him guilty under Regulation 5 of the Punjab University Calendar (Volume II), 1988. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Vice-chancellor. It was rejected on November 5, 1993. Hence this petition.

In response to the notice of motion, the respondent-University has filed a written statement. It has been inter alia averred that the petitioner has not disclosed full fads and that on the basis of the material on record the possession of the incriminating material was mala fide and that the impugned orders are thus absolutely legal and valid.

We have heard Mr. C. M. Makker, for the petitioner and Mr. Vikrant Sharma, for the respondent-University.

Mr. Makker, has made a two-fold submission. Firstly, the learned counsel has contended that the petitioner has had a consistently brilliant academic record and as such, he did not deserve to be punished for the inadvertent mistake of carrying a piece of paper in his pocket. Secondly, it has been submitted that the action of the Disciplinary Committee suffers from the vice of discrimination inasmuch as while the petitioner has been disqualified for a period of two years, another candidate (Surinder Pal Sandhu, a final year student of Fine Arts) in an identical situation, had been merely debarred from passing in the paper concerned. The claim made on behalf of the petitioner was firmly controverted by Mr. Vikrant Sharma.

Before proceeding to consider the respective submissions, it is appropriate to notice the relevant provision contained in Regulations 4 and 5. These are as under :--

"4. If during a University Examination a candidate is found having in his possession 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."

If during a University Examination a candidate is found in mala fide possession of any material such as :--

(a) Papers, books or notes, pr

(b) Written notes on any part of the clothes worn 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, slide 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 once a year, or for four examinations, 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 shows that in a case where the possession of the incriminating material is ''inadvertent'', the candidate can be debarred from passing in that paper. However, when the possession is found to be ''mala fide'', the candidate is liable to be disqualified from appearing in any University Examination for a period ''of two years.

When can the possession be described as ''inadvertent'' or ''mala fide''? There is no cut and dry method. No mathematical formula can be laid down. It depends on the facts of each case. The intention of the candidate has to be inferred from a variety of attendant circumstances. This is a matter which is essentially within the jurisdiction of the Committee appointed by the University. Broadly, it can be said that the intention of a candidate can be gathered from the incriminating material and his own conduct, as may be noticed by the supervisory staff. If a candidate has tried to note down too many things on too small a piece of paper, the material itself may lead to an inference of ''mala fides''. Similarly, a candidate''s awkward movements or effort to have a quick look at the paper in his possession can fairly indicate that the possession of the paper was not ''inadvertent.''

What is the position in the present case ? Admittedly, the paper found in possession of the petitioner related to the subject of the examination and was in his own handwriting. The Assistant Superintendent at the Examination Centrel, had noticed that the petitioner was taking out this hand-written paper: He had consequently made the following report:--

"On having round, I found the candidate taking put a hand-written paper. The same paper is attached herewith."

This report clearly shows that the petitioner was taking out the hand-written paper during the course of the examination. This was obviously with a view to use it. It clearly belies the plea of innocence or inadvertence raised on behalf of the petitioner. If the possession had been inadvertent, the petitioner would have made no effort to take out the paper. In this situation, it cannot be said that the Committee had acted illegally and arbitrarily in drawing an inference of ''mala fides''. The impugned action of the respondent is thus in complete conformity with the provision contained in Regulation 5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner was at pains to point out that the petitioner has had a consistently good academic record and as such it cannot be imagined that he would resort to the use of unfair means during the course of the examination.

It is undoubtedly correct that the certificates produced by the petitioner show that he had secured 60% or more marks in some of the examinations taken by him. However, a perusal of the record shows that on being summoned by the University authorities, the petitioner had given his answers in writing to a questionnaire. In answer to different questions, he had inter alia stated as under :--

(i) (In reply to Question No. 4) :

"The paper snatched from my pocket was remained in it while I was coming from home by mistake due to mental tension....".

(ii) (In reply to Question No, 8) : "This is own handwriting Guess Paper."

It is true that English is not our mother tongue. However, it is equally difficult to accept that a candidate who secures 60% or more marks even in the subject of English should make such mistakes in answering simple questions. The use of unfair means being rampant, one can only hope that the petitioner had not resorted to unfair means during the various examinations.

As for the contention that the action is discriminatory, it may only be mentioned that in case of Surinder Pal Sandhu, the Committee had found that "the candidate''s plea of inadvertent possession has been consistent, right from the Examination Centre itself and his demeanour before the Committee lends credence, to the same. The Committee, is, therefore, inclined to accept the candidate''s plea of inadvertence and finds him guilty under Regulation 4......." Such is not the situation in the petitioner''s case. The Committee has clearly found and we think rightly that the candidate had been in mala fide possession of the incriminating material. Still more, even while filing the petition, the petitioner did not mention the report made by the Assistant Superintendent. We think the omission was not ''inadvertent.''

A faint effort was made to submit that the punishment is excessive. The counsel prayed that the Court should intervene and reduce the punishment. In this behalf, we only wish to observe that the use of unfair means during examinations has become an acute problem for academic bodies. In certain cases, even allegations of connivance by the supervisory staff and the parents have been noticed. A student who manages to pass an examination by using ''unfair'' means cannot grow up to be a ''fair'' citizen. This fact should be a matter of concern for the Society at large and the parents in particular. Deterrent punishment may be one of the methods to discourage all segments of Society from resorting to ''unfair'' means during the ex amination. As for the Petitioner, we find no ground to interfere with the order of punishment passed by the University. We feel concerned at the prospect of such a person adorning the robes and becoming a member of the Bar.

We find no merit in the petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

Petition dismissed.