Yadhvinder Singh vs Punjab University, Chandigarh and another

Petitioner Yadhvinder Singh, student of B.S. Part III, of the Punjab University Chandigarh, has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, for the quashing of impugned orders dated 7th July, 1989. 12th July, 1989 and 6th September, 1989. by which he has been disqualified from appearing in any University examination for a period of two years, that is, 1989 and 1990, having been found guilty of mala fide possession of incriminating material in the examination centre while appearing in the B.Sc. Part HI Examination.

The short grievance of the petitioner is that no doubt he was found having in his possession a piece of paper on which rough notes had been written in his hand, but he did not derive any help from that piece of paper as it was not relevant 10 the subject of examination of Physical Chemistry, in which the petitioner was appearing on the crucial date of the examination; that is, on 10th April, 1989. According to the petitioner, he had just scribbled a few addresses of his relatives/ friends and some petty accounts for his domestic purposes. As such, it was due to sheer inadvertence that he happened to carry the paper to the examination centre.

In the reply filed by the Punjab University, Chandigarh, the case pleaded is a little different that is the piece of paper had been recovered from the socks worn by the petitioner and the contents of the paper recovered were relevant to the subject of Physical Chemistry in which the petitioner was taking the examination on that date. Thus, according to the U. M. C. Standing Committee of the University, which consists of members of great learning, it was a case of mala fide possession of incriminating material under Regulation 5 of the Punjab University Calendar, 1988 (Volume II), and the punishment imposed on the petitioner, that is disqualification from appearing in any University examination for a period of two years was in order.

I have gone through the pleadings of the parties and other documentary material on the record and have heard the teamed counsel for the parties at length. I have also seen the disputed piece of paper with the help of the learned counsel for the respondent University. Before arriving at any conclusion, it would be necessary to have a look at the relevant Regulations of the University Calendar, as reproduced below:--

"Regn. 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 measured.

"Regn. 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 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, side rules, etc, or notes written on them, which are 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."

With respect to the learned members of the U. M. C. Standing Committee of the University, I do not agree with them. According to the University authorities, the incriminating slip was recovered from the socks of the petitioner which fact the petitioner has disputed, -- no doubt, before the Vice-Chancellor in his representation, for the first time. I have no reason to disbelieve the University staff at the examination centre and disagree with the inferences drawn by the learned members of the Standing Committee about the veracity of the invigilation staff. Still the fact stands that there is an essential ingredient of the misconduct, necessary for sustaining the punishment under Regn. 5, which is lacking in the present case. According to Regn. 5, for bringing home the misconduct to a candidate, it is necessary to prove that the material was "relevant to the subject of the examination". If, on the other hand, the incriminating material "could be of assistance" only to the candidate, then the case would be covered under Regn. 4 and not under Regn. 5. In that case, the candidate is only to be debarred from passing in that paper alone; which exactly is the position in the present case. This would be evident from the subject expert''s report as relied upon by the Standing Committee and reproduced below :--

"The paper recovered from the candidate (as shown to me) does contain material "which can be of use" for third year B.Sc. Physical Chemistry syllabus of Punjab University."

Consequently, I allow the writ petition and by issuing a writ of certiorari, (i) quash the impugned orders dated 7th July, 1989, 12th July, 1989, and 6th September, 1989 (Annexures P. 5, R. 6 and P. 8), (ii) convert the punishment awarded by the University under Regn. 5 to that under Regn, 4, and (iii) direct the University authorities to declare the result of the petitioner of B.Sc. Part III Examination, on that basis forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs.

Petition allowed.