Umesh Chandraa Pathak v. Gorakhpur University — 1982 DIGILAW 549 (ALL)

JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - This petition connected with others has questioned the validity of an order dated 27th September, 1980 cancelling the petitioners result of LL.B. Part II for the year 1979 and further debarring Him from appearing in the examination of the next year 1980. 2. The petitioner was a student of Sant Vinoba Degree College, Deoria, which was affiliated with the Gorakhpur University. The petitioner was a student of LL.B. Part II in the year 1979. The results of about sixty students, which included that of the petitioner also, were cancelled by the Gorakhpur University on the ground of use of unfair means at the examination. The petitioner received a primed charge-sheet dated 3- -1980 calling upon him to snow cause to the two charges stated in the same. The first charge was that the petitioner had used unfair means while answering question no. 7 of the property Law paper white the second was that he had copied question no. 8 (1) from pages 279 and 280 of Dr. Tripathi's book. the petitioner submitted a reply to the charge-sheet and denied that he was guilty of using unfair means. The Sub-Committee appointed by the University considered the explanation of the petitioner and found the same to be unacceptable. On the finding that the petitioner used unfair means at the examination referred to above, the Sub-Committee cancelled his examination of the year 1979 and further debarred him from appearing in the examination of the year 1980. Against the aforesaid order, the present writ petition had been filed. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Gorakhpur University admitting that Sant Vinoba Degree College, Deoria was its affiliated College and the LL.B. Examinations had bee a conducted by the University. The allegations made further were that on 6th April, 1980, a flying squad consisting of Sri R.A. Singh, Karunakar Tripathi, Sri Pohari Saran, Sri R.Y. Dennis, Sri S.K. Pandey, Sri Yogendra Singh, Sri Kanhaiya Ojha, Sri W.N. John and Sri Daya Nath Tripathi, who were teachers of the University, went to inspect the examination of the aforesaid College. The flying squad of the tellers was accompanied by four armed constables. The flying squad found that the candidates appearing in the examination were throwing books from the windows of the halls. The flying squad of the tellers was accompanied by four armed constables. The flying squad found that the candidates appearing in the examination were throwing books from the windows of the halls. Out of those books thrown the flying squad seized 35 from various students The allegations made in this regard further were that as soon as the flying squad proceeded cowards the hail known as Canteen the students started manhandling the members of the flying squad and snatched all the answer books seized by the members of the flying squad. They started chasing the members of the living squad as also the police constables and resorted to brick bats. The students tried to snatch the rifles of the police constables. 4. The flying squad submitted a report to the University. The Examiner examined the various answer books and submitted his report in the case of individual student that certain students copied from the books mentioned by him in his report. After the receipt of the report of me Examiner, the matter was examined by the Sub-Committee which had been appointed by the Examinations Committee under Section 29 of the U.P. State Universities Act. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet requiring him to give explanation to the charges. As the explanation offered was found to be unsatisfactory and the charges had been established, the result of the petitioner of the year 1979 was cancelled except tutorial and he was further debarred from appearing in the examination of 1980. 5. To the counter-affidavit, a rejoinder has also been filed. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the Gorakhpur University. 6. the first question taken up by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that in the instant case, the impugned order cancelling the result of the petitioner and further debarring him had since been passed by the Vice-Chancellor and not by the Committee which alone had the power to do so, hence, the impugned order was without jurisdiction and is thus, invalid- 7. For examining this submission, we may quote Section 29 (3) and (4) of the U.P. State Universities Act. For examining this submission, we may quote Section 29 (3) and (4) of the U.P. State Universities Act. These sub-sections reads as under : - "(3) The Examinations Committee may appoint such number of subcommittees as it thinks fit, and in particular, may delegate to any one or more persons or sub-committee the power to deal with and decide cases relating to the use of unfair means by the examinees. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, it shall be lawful for an examinations Committee or, as the case may be, for a sub-committee or any person to whom the Examinations Committee has delegated its power in this behalf under sub-Section (3), to debar an examinee from future examinations or the University, if in its or his opinion such examinee is guilty of using unfair means at any such examination." 8. Sub-section (2) was inserted in Section 29 by U.P. Act 5 of 1977 on account of the decision given by this Court in Agra University v. Ashok, Kumar Arora, 1976 ALJ 183, in which the view taken was that the University had only the power to cancel the examination of the students found guilty of using unfair means of that particular year but it had no power to debar him. This has now been made clear by sub section (4) of Section 29. Sub- section (3) of Section 29 empowers the Examinations Committee to appoint such number of sub-committee as it thinks fit for dealing with and deciding the cases relating to the use of unfair means. According to the Ordinances of Gorakhpur University, ail the Deans were members of the Examinations Committee. The said Examinations Committee appointed various Sub-Committees including the one which dealt with and decided the case of the petitioner,the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, as stated above, was that the impugned order since was pasted by the Chancellor and net by the Sub-Committee, the same was invalid. 9. After hearing counsel for the parties, we are of opinion that the wrong use of proforma by the Gorakhpur University, has end to the making of the aforesaid argument by the petitioner. In Para 17 (a) it has been stated on behalf of the University that the decision had been taken by the Sub-Committee. To us, it appears that on account of use of old form, the confusion has arisen. In Para 17 (a) it has been stated on behalf of the University that the decision had been taken by the Sub-Committee. To us, it appears that on account of use of old form, the confusion has arisen. We have also been shown the original orders passed in this case and other connected cases by the Sub-Committee which demonstrated that the order in each one of them was passed by it. That being so, the petitioners case of the order having passed by the Vice Chancellor and not by the Sub-Committee does not appear to us to be correct. The Gorakhpur University had complied with the requirement of Section 29 (3) fully. 10. Counsel next argued that under sub-section (4) of Section 29 the power given to the University only was to debar a student and not to cancel his result. This submission is devoid of substance, since sub-section (3) of Section 29 confers power on sub-committee to decide cases relating to. the use of unfair means by the examinees. To us, it appear that the power to cancel the result of an examinee on the ground of use of unfair "means flows from Section 29 (3). As we have already pointed out above it is on account of the decision given in Agra University v. Ashok Kumar Arora (Supra) that sub-section (4) was added by U.P. Act 5 of 77. 11. The second submission of the learned counsel was that as the case of University was that of mass copying, the only action which could be taken was that of the cancellation of the result of the subject in which students were found guilty of using unfair means. It was not open to the Gorakhpur University to cancel the result. For this submission, counsel placed reliance on some of the paragraphs of the counter-affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the case taken by the University is that of copying at a mass scale or a large s.ale. However, that could not deprive the Gorakhpur University from proceeding with the examining of each individual case of students appearing from the said centre and taking action against those who were guilty of using unfair means. The course adopted by the University of having given opportunity to every student who was found guilty by the Examiner, was fairer than what was suggested by the petitioners learned counsel. The course adopted by the University of having given opportunity to every student who was found guilty by the Examiner, was fairer than what was suggested by the petitioners learned counsel. Cancellation of the result of all the students would have resulted in causing injustice to the innocent students who did not use unfair means. 12. The other argument made was about the vagueness of the charge-sheet. Counsel produced before us some of the books for contending that the number of the pages given in the charge-sheet from which the petitioner is said to have copied were incorrect. Be that as it may, we have ourselves checked from the books and found the verbatim reproduction of the answers of the aforesaid two questions It appears to us that the pages given in the charge-sheet were from the earlier edition. Hence, it is incorrect to say that the questions have not been copied from the book mentioned in the charge-sheet. 13. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had since crammed the answers he could reproduce the same, hence the verbatim reproduction from the book could not be considered as use of unfair means. His submission was that the Sub-Committee ignored this aspect of the matter and as such, the finding recorded by it against the petitioner was perverse. We are unable to accept the submission of the petitioners learned counsel. The Examiner submitted the report that the petitioner was guilty of using unfair means. This report of the Examiner as well as the explanation was considered by the Sub-Committee. They also found that the petitioner was guilty of using unfair means at the examination. Taking into account these facts.it is not possible to uphold the petitioners contention. the Examiner as well as the members constituting the Sub-Committee were experts on the subject. We cannot substitute our own view in the matter. No grievance of arbitrariness had been raised against the sub-committee. The rule of law in this matter is that the opinion evidence of the experts should be accepted, unless it is shown to be perverse or mala fide. We cannot substitute our own view in the matter. No grievance of arbitrariness had been raised against the sub-committee. The rule of law in this matter is that the opinion evidence of the experts should be accepted, unless it is shown to be perverse or mala fide. The quest on before the Sub-Committee has to be decided by it in the light of the answers given by the petitioner and that is what the Sub Committee has do the Whether the petitioner was capable of cramming the answers and reproducing the same was a matter to be considered by the Enquiry Committee. The Enquiry Committee and before it the Examiner considered all the relevant facts before it and came to the conclusion that the petitioner used unfair means. The Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot assume or confer upon itself the job of an appeal and covert itself in a super Examinations Committee. The power of High Court in such a matter is limited one to see that the decision of the Examinations Committee is not perverse and is not without any evidence on the record. 14. In Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P. v. Bagleshwar Prasad, AIR 1966 SC 875 , the Supreme Court made the following observations in connection with the case of a student whose writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against the decision of the Board was allowed. The Supreme Court held that : "In dealing with petitions of this type, it is necessary to bear in mind that educational institutions like the Universities or appellant No. 1 set up Enquiry Committees to deal with the problem posed by the adoption of unfair means by candidates, and normally it is within the jurisdiction of such domestic Tribunals to decide all relevant questions in the light of the evidence adduced before them. In the matter of the adoption of unfair means, dire evidence may some times be available, but cases may arise where direct evidence is not available and the question will have to be considered in the light of probabilities and circumstantial evidence. This problem which educational institutions have to face from time to time is a serious problem and unless there is justification to do so, courts should be slow to interfere with the decisions of domestic Tribunals appointed by educational bodies like the Universities. This problem which educational institutions have to face from time to time is a serious problem and unless there is justification to do so, courts should be slow to interfere with the decisions of domestic Tribunals appointed by educational bodies like the Universities. In dealing with the validity of the impugned orders passed by Universities under Article 226, the High Court is not sitting in appeal over the decision in question, its jurisdiction is limited and though it is true that if the impugned order is not supported by any evidence at all, the High Court would be justified to quash that order." 15. A Full Bench of our Court recently considered the same controversy in Ghazanfar Rashid v. Secretary Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., 1979 ALJ 676 and held that the High Court cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the subordinate Tribunal or the authority and it has no jurisdiction to interfere with the finding given on appraisal of evidence even if those findings may be erroneous. 16. In the instant case, we ourselves examined the copy of the petitioner and the book which had been used by him for copying and found that there is a verbatim reproduction of the answers Torn the book. The Examiner and the Sub-Committee did not accept the explanation of the petitioner that the questions had been answered by him as he had crammed the same. 17. It is well settled that the application of rule of natural justice depends upon the situation or circumstances existing at the time when the application is called for. What is required to be seen is whether the action taken is fair and honest. Every authority has a right to evolve its own procedure in a matter like the present. What is necessary to assure is that fairness is shown by the decision maker to man proceeded against. In Board of Mining Examinations v. Ramjee, AIR 1977 SC 965 , the Supreme Court held "The rules of natural justice must not be stretched too far"said Lord Denning M.R. for only too often the people who have done wrong seek to invoke the natural justice"so as to avoid the consequences." 18. Seeing in the above light, we find that full opportunity was given to the petitioner and he availed the same. 19. Seeing in the above light, we find that full opportunity was given to the petitioner and he availed the same. 19. Counsel for the petitioner next argued that as the petitioner was found copying in the IInd Semester of LL.B. Part II, his result of that semester could alone be cancelled. We do not find any merit in this submission. The entire course of LL.B. is spread over a period of three years called as three parts of LL.B. (LL.B. Part I, LL.B. Part II and LL.B. Part III), the examination of each part is treated as one Examination. However, for the sake of convenience of the students that the examination of each year is taken in two semesters. It is a convenient way or method of dividing the subject of study. The examination of one separate semester does not have any individual identity. No separate result of any semester is declared and the result of each part is declared only when the two semesters of that part is over. Ordinances and Regulations of Gorakhpur University dealing with this matter is reproduced below : - 2. (a). The examination for the degree of Bachelor of Law shall be in six semesters and the course of study shall be spread over three academic years. (b). The first two semester examinations shall tog their constitute the LL.B. Part I examination, and the next two semester examinations shall together constitute LL.B. Part II Examination. The last two semester examinations shall together constitute LL.B. Part III Examination. 3. A candidate shall be awarded the degree of Bachelor of Law after he has been declared successful as ail the three examinations, i.e. LL.B. Parts I, II and III, separately. 4. The result of a candidate for the LL.B. Parts I, II and III Examinations separately shall be declared on the basis of the aggregate of marks obtained by the candidate at the two semester examinations of each academic years." From the above, it is demonstrated that the submission has no merit. 20. Counsel also argued at the end that since the petitioner had been permitted to appear at the LL.B. Part III Examination under a stay order of this Court, the University may be directed to declare his result. We do not find any justification for giving of such a direction. 21. 20. Counsel also argued at the end that since the petitioner had been permitted to appear at the LL.B. Part III Examination under a stay order of this Court, the University may be directed to declare his result. We do not find any justification for giving of such a direction. 21. No doubt Article 226 of the Constitution confers very wide powers in the matter of issuing writs, but this power can be exercised for doing justice and not injustice. To interfere in this case, where our definite view is that the petitioner is guilty of using unfair means, would be shutting our eyes to the misconduct in which the petitioner and others indulged in large scale copying. The fact that there was no direct evidence of the invigilators that the petitioner was guilty of malpractices is of no consequence. The report of the examiner was a strong circumstantial evidence. A student who has resorted to malpractices cannot claim that in the absence of the petitioner having been caught in the examination hall he could not be held guilty of using unfair means, as more than often the invigilators are threatened of die consequences, if the examinee is checked. There was ample material before the University for its opinion. So long as there is material justifying the decision of the University, the possibility of this Court arriving at an alternative conclusion on the same material can never be a ground for writ. We regretfully note that the standards of education and discipline have fallen very low. To give any relief to the petitioner would amount to granting of patronage to malpractices and indiscipline concern for the youth justifies the Universitys action. It is beyond our jurisdiction to go into quantum of punishment. To do so will amount to taking by the High Court upon itself the administration of educational institutions. If by representing facts which have been found to be false, the petitioner succeeded in getting a stay order, that cannot be the basis for giving relief to him. If that is done, the confidence of the law abiding citizens would be shaken. It will make the law a mockery. 22. With this petition, we have heard several other petitions, a chart of which has been annexed by us alongwith this judgment. The said chart would indicate the charges levelled against each individual student. If that is done, the confidence of the law abiding citizens would be shaken. It will make the law a mockery. 22. With this petition, we have heard several other petitions, a chart of which has been annexed by us alongwith this judgment. The said chart would indicate the charges levelled against each individual student. Each one of them, to our mind, has been rightly found guilty of using unfair means. We have examined the relevant papers and the copies of these students and found that the charges had been rightly found to have been established. 23 For the reasons given above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. The stay order is vacated.