Research › Browse › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

1988 DIGILAW 303 (ORI)

SUVENDU KUMAR v. SAMBALPUR UNIVERSITY

1988-10-13

R.C.PATNAIK, S.C.MOHAPATRA

body1988
S. C. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) IN this application under Art. 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has assailed cancellation of his result in the Annual B. Com. Examination, 1987 and restriction imposed upon him from appearing at any examination prior to the Annual Examination of 1988 as per Notification dt. 7-6-1988 of Sambalpur University (Annexure-1 ). ( 2 ) PETITIONER appeared at the Annual Bachelor in Commerce Examination conducted by the Sambalpur University in 1987 as a regular Student of Municipal College. Rourkela. Chancellor received a representation dt. 1-5-1987 that there was chance of the petitioner adopting unfair means in the examination in connivance with some examiners at the time of valuation of the answer papers which were to be centrally valued at Government College, Rourkela which was a Zonal valuation Centre of Sambalpur University. Copy of the representation was forwarded by office of the Chancellor to the Controller of Examinations of Sambalpur University on 13-5-1987 for taking appropriate steps. Board of conducting examiners was accordingly, requested to take note of the same. After scrutiny of the answer scripts conducting Board found that the papers Accountancy and Advanced Accounting of the petitioner were mutilated. The inner pages of the answer papers were changed by inserting some new pages. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Examination Discipline Committee with the report of the conducting Board on the basis of which petitioner was called upon to show, cause as follows :- "you appeared at the Annual B. Com. Examination of 1987 conducted by the Sambalpur University with Roll No. 21779 at Rourkela Municipal College Centre. It has been reported that you adopted unfair means at the Examination in Accountancy and Advanced Accounting paper on 28-4-87 and 12-5-1987. In this connection, I am directed to say that the following charges have been made against you. (G) It is reported that you have changed the inner pages of your Answer scripts in Accountancy and Advanced Accounting. 2. xxx xxx xxx 3. xxx xxx xxx 4. xxx xxx xxx" ( 3 ) PETITIONER denied the allegation and stated that he would appear before the Examination Discipline Committee on the date fixed where the answer scripts in other papers were to be kept ready for verification and also for original report on which the charge was based. 2. xxx xxx xxx 3. xxx xxx xxx 4. xxx xxx xxx" ( 3 ) PETITIONER denied the allegation and stated that he would appear before the Examination Discipline Committee on the date fixed where the answer scripts in other papers were to be kept ready for verification and also for original report on which the charge was based. Petitioner appeared on the date fixed and after enquiry, result of the petitioner's examination was cancelled and he was debarred from appearing at any examination prior to Annual Examination of 1988. ( 4 ) CASE of the petitioner is that his father as the Executive Officer of the Notified Area Council was the Secretary of the Governing Body of the College. On account of promotion of a teacher in commerce, the other teachers were hostile and some teachers threatened the petitioner on a number of occasions that the petitioner would suffer the consequences of his fathers action in the University Examination. Petitioner made a representation to the Administrator of the University alleging against the observer of the University as well as some teachers. However, petitioner received no reply of the same from the Administrator. Petitioner appeared before the Examination Discipline Committee. He was not shown the answer scripts and the report was also not shown to him although he asked for the same. Accordingly, Annexure-1 is alleged to be our come of violation of principle of natural justice. ( 5 ) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the University by the Assistant Registrar (Academic) who was admittedly one of the members of the Examination Discipline Committee. Amongst others, it is stated : ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . The petitioner was given sufficient opportunity of being heard by the Examination Discipline Committee and the petitioner was confronted with the report of the Conducting Board and his answer scripts of the relevant papers. The petitioner simply denied the charges which were levelled against him. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '' ( 6 ) ON the application of the petitioner, University was directed not to destroy the answer papers of the petitioner till the disposal of the writ application and to produce the answer papers at the time of hearing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '' ( 6 ) ON the application of the petitioner, University was directed not to destroy the answer papers of the petitioner till the disposal of the writ application and to produce the answer papers at the time of hearing. Producing of the records of the disciplinary proceeding relating to the petitioner was also called for. They were produced by the learned counsel for the University at the time of hearing. ( 7 ) ON examination of the answer scripts, it is seen that the University perforates the Answer Scripts performing the same with mark 'su'. The mark is such that all the pages contain the same mark at the same place and any change would displace the perforation. On perusal of the two answer papers in respect of which delinquency is alleged, we find that the perforation has been displaced, marks on the cover pages do not tally with the papers contained in it. In paragraph 8 of the writ application, petitioner asserted -". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . He was asked why he began writing from the backside of the answer script like Urdu. The petitioner explained that after returning from outside where he went to answer the call of nature he came running into the Hall and by mistake started writing without knowing that some one had kept reversing the page after he kept it before leaving the hall. The petitioner wanted to strike off the portion written by him by mistake but he was advised by the Invigilator not to do so as the Examiner will have no difficulty in reading it upside down. . . . . . . . . . . "answer scripts do not support such assertion if the petitioner. Although all other answer Scripts of the petitioner were found to have the perforation marks intact, in answer scripts of the petitioner in Accountancy and Advanced Accounting the perforation marks were not regular. Petitioner has not disputed that he, has written the answers. Thus, the allegations made against the petitioner is not unjustified and initiation of the proceeding was justified. Although hostility has been alleged against the teachers and even the Supervisor sent by the University, no material was produced by the petitioner in support of such assertion. Petitioner has not disputed that he, has written the answers. Thus, the allegations made against the petitioner is not unjustified and initiation of the proceeding was justified. Although hostility has been alleged against the teachers and even the Supervisor sent by the University, no material was produced by the petitioner in support of such assertion. On examination of the answer scripts and after hearing the petitioner, when the members of the examination discipline committee came to the conclusion that the petitioner has changed the answers by inserting papers where answers written by him by removing the original answer papers from the answer scripts, there is no scope to interfere with such a finding which cannot be said to be unreasonable. ( 8 ) DR. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision in (1981) 51 Cut LT 300 (Bidhan Chandra Das v. Utkal University) and submitted that when tearing up answer script is not mal-practice, change of the same cannot be malpractice. On the facts of the said case, it was so held since the candidate did not get any advantage for tearing up the papers. Inserting answers written in some other papers which were not part of the answer scripts does not stand at par for tearing up entire answer script since petitioner made an attempt to get advantage of it which amounts to unfair means in examination. Adopting unfair means in examination to secure success or higher marks invites penalty to be imposed. ( 9 ) IN the result, there is no merit in this writ application which is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ( 10 ) R. C. PATNAIK, J. I agree. Petition dismissed.