V. Prakash v. Anna University and Another — 1997 DIGILAW 914 (MAD)

Judgment :- The petitioner seeks the assistance of this Court for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records of the norms of punishment to candidates of the respondent-University comprised in Reference No. 26954/DWC. C.5/96 dated 30-12-1996 and the consequential decision of the 2nd respondent punishing the petitioner contained in the Minutes of the 33rd Meeting of the second respondent held on 16-12-1996 and quash the same and also direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to proceed with the course of study and pass such further orders. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is stated that the petitioner had applied for admission to the First B.E. course in the Anna University during the academic year 1994-95 and on consideration of the claims of the petitioner including the marks secured by him in the Plus Two examination and in the written test conducted by the respondent-University, he was selected for admission to the First B.E. course for the year 1994-95. It is further stated that he underwent the First Year course which includes the first and the second year semesters during the same academic year and was successful in the Second Year B.E. course comprising the third and fourth semesters during the academic year 1995-96, the petitioner appeared and passed in all but one paper in the third and fourth semester examinations. One paper in the third semester could not be attended, since he was unwell and the paper was carried over during the fifth semester. The fifth semester examinations commenced in August, 1996 and ended in December, 1996. He also wrote the incomplete paper in the third semester along with the fifth semester examinations. On 5-12-1996, the petitioner went to the examination hall to attend the examination. By mistake and due to absent-mindedness, the petitioner took his purse, which contained a calculator, some library card with the Lab manual and other working papers and placed them in a corner of the big drawing table. On 5-12-1996, the petitioner went to the examination hall to attend the examination. By mistake and due to absent-mindedness, the petitioner took his purse, which contained a calculator, some library card with the Lab manual and other working papers and placed them in a corner of the big drawing table. Even though the petitioner did not have any occasion to open the same, when the invigilator came and noticed the purse with these contents, suspected him of possessing incriminating materials and did not allow him to write the examination, even though the petitioner submitted that he had brought it by mistake in a hurry and had not touched the same. The invigilator was not satisfied with the answers and he was asked to appear before the Dean. Before the Dean also, the petitioner explained what had happened and on his direction, the petitioner gave a statement as to how he had brought the purse into the Hall. The petitioner gave a written statement stating that the same was brought by mistake and he had no intention of using the same. The petitioner was thereafter not allowed to sit for examination on that day, though for subsequent days, he wrote the examinations and completed the fifth semester. On 16-12-1996, the petitioner was asked to appear before the Discipline and Welfare Committee of the respondent-University, before whom also, the petitioner explained as to what had happened on 5-12-1996. The sixth semester course commenced in January, 1997 and the petitioner also joined the same. Thereafter, the petitioner received a letter from the 2nd respondent informing him about the punishment the respondent had imposed on him. By that letter, the petitioner was inflicted with a punishment of cancellation of the registration and enrolment done for all the courses during the fifth semester, with a further direction that the petitioner will not be permitted to register and enroll for any course during the following semesters including the summer term. The petitioner was also directed to register for the fifth semester again when they are offered next, i.e. August, 1997. 3. According to the petitioner, the punishment that is imposed on him is illegal and harsh, and, therefore, he made a representation to the Vice-Chancellor of the University in January, 1997. There was no reply from the Vice-Chancellor. The petitioner was also directed to register for the fifth semester again when they are offered next, i.e. August, 1997. 3. According to the petitioner, the punishment that is imposed on him is illegal and harsh, and, therefore, he made a representation to the Vice-Chancellor of the University in January, 1997. There was no reply from the Vice-Chancellor. Repeated reminders were also sent for reconsideration of the punishment and the appeal to the Vice-Chancellor was without any success. 4. For the above reasons, the petitioner has sought for the assistance of this Court by filing this writ petition. In the various grounds that are taken challenging the punishment, the petitioner states that the punishment imposed on him is arbitrary and unreasonable, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the same also violates the fundamental principle of natural justice. 5. It is his further case that the impugned norms given in the guidelines relating to punishment are absolutely perverse and arbitrary. The proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee is of a judicial or a quasi-judicial nature by the impugned norms, the automatic punishment is imposed, even if the materials have not been used, which according to the petitioner, is opposed to law and, therefore, liable to be struck down as invalid. No inquiry worth mentioning was conducted. 6. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the University and the affidavit is sworn by the Controller of Examinations. In the counter-affidavit, they said that the petitioner is the son of the Assistant Professor of English in the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences. He has also stated that on 5-12-1996, the petitioner was found to be in possession of incriminating materials, which includes some additional sheets with duly worked out problems and tables, indicating also the register number of the petitioner, pertaining to the subject-matter of the examination, some printed data tables and some extra additional sheets with some rought work etc. The same were kept in a purse which was found placed near him on the table on which the petitioner was writing the examination. Apparently the petitioner had secured additional books through his mother and written the answers and brought them to the examination hall with the intention of inserting the same along with the main answer book given to him at the moment. But, before his attempt could fructify, he was caught by the invigilator. Apparently the petitioner had secured additional books through his mother and written the answers and brought them to the examination hall with the intention of inserting the same along with the main answer book given to him at the moment. But, before his attempt could fructify, he was caught by the invigilator. The materials were placed before the Chief Superintendent of University Examinations, who, in turn place the materials before the Discipline and Welfare Committee, a body duly constituted by the Syndicate or enquiry and decision. after giving an opportunity to the petitioner for personal hearing, it was found that the petitioner required a punishment. During the course of hearing, the petitioner admitted the possession of the incriminating materials, though he never attempted to make use of the same. A Discipline and Welfare Committee is constituted with the Dean of Engineering (under-graduate course) College of Engineering, Dean of Engineering (post-graduate course), Dean of Engineering (M.I.T.), Dean of Technology, Alagappa College of Technology, Dean of Architecture and Planning, School of Architecture and Planning, Dean of Science and Humanities and the Controller of Examinations. It is this Committee that unanimously held that the petitioner was to be imposed with the punishment as proved in the guidelines which are reasonable. It is also alleged that in matters of the University, the Courts should be slow in interference, for the University imposes the punishment in order to maintain discipline of the institution. In what way the punishment is to be imposed is a matter which has to be decided only by the University and not by Court. It prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. On behalf of the petitioner, Mr. R. Krishnamurthy, learned Senior Counsel argued the matter. According to him, the norms of punishment published by the University is severe. He also brought to the notice of Court that the other Universities have also norms, but the same is not that much severe. In the University of Madras, if incriminating materials are such, they only cancel the examination taken in the particular subject. But in the case of respondent herein, the punishment imposed on the candidate is, registration and enrolment done for all the courses during the calendar semester are cancelled. In the University of Madras, if incriminating materials are such, they only cancel the examination taken in the particular subject. But in the case of respondent herein, the punishment imposed on the candidate is, registration and enrolment done for all the courses during the calendar semester are cancelled. Apart from the same, the candidate will not be permitted to register and enroll for any course during the following semester including the summer term and he will be permitted to sit for the examination when the same are offered next. 8. # In the case of punishment imposed on students by the University, the Court cannot say that the punishment is severe or not for that is a matter which University alone will have to decide taking into consideration the severity of the mal practice. It is also intended as a warning to the other students, so that they may behave properly. It is also intended that the candidates who write the examination after a full study and remain honest in their performance must be given their due merit, and dishonest candidates should be shown their place. # 9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that even the respondent did not have the case that the petitioner had made use of the incriminating materials at the time when he was writing the examination, merely placing of purse near his table will not prove that he had a dishonest intention to make use of the same. It is a case that before imposing punishment, the Committee discharges a quasi-judicial function, and, therefore, the severity of the punishment must have a bearing with the mal practice intended. Even if there is an incriminating material, that should not be a ground for a severe punishment, unless it is used. The same punishment is given to a candidate whether he used or not treating them equally, according to the petitioner, is bad. 10. I do not think that such a contention could be accepted by a Court of Law, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Central Board of Secondary Education v. Vineeta Mahajan 1994 AIR(SC) 733, 1993 (6) JT 165 , 1993 (5) SLR 759, 1993 (4) Scale 153 , 1994 (1) SCC 6 , 1994 (1) GLH 71, 1994 (2) MLJ 18, 1994 AIR(SCW) 77. That was a case where a lady student brought some incriminating materials and had kept the same inside the geometry box brought by her. The incriminating materials were not used by her for the examination. But, when the same was found out, she admitted that she has brought the same. Though she did not intend to make use of the same, she was punished by the Disciplinary Committee. She filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi. The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the punishment. It was against the said order, the Central Board of Secondary Education moved the Supreme Court questioning the legality of the High Court's order. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court said that there cannot be any distinction between the bona fide or mala fide possession of the incriminating materials. Once the candidate brings the incriminating materials to the examination hall, nothing more is required. The bona fide intention of the candidate is not a ground for absolving her from punishment. In para 5 (page 8 of the judgment, their Lordships held thus (at page 79 of AIR SCW) :- "The High Court fell into patent error in reading a rebuttable presumption in the language of the Rule. The Rule clearly defines the use of unfair means at the examination and lays down in simple language that a candidate having in possession of papers, relevant to the examination, in the paper concerned, shall be deemed to have used unfair means at the examination. The sine qua non, for the misconduct under the Rule, is the recovery of the incriminating material from the possession of the candidates. Once the candidate is found to be in possession of papers relevant to the examination, the requirement of the Rule is satisfied and there is no escape from the conclusion that the candidate has used unfair means at the examination. The Rule does not make any distinction between bona fide or mala fide possession of the incriminating material. The High Court reasoning, that the candidate having not used the material in spite of the opportunity available to her the possession alone would not attract the provisions of the Rule, in our view is not come out from the plain language of the Rule. The High Court reasoning, that the candidate having not used the material in spite of the opportunity available to her the possession alone would not attract the provisions of the Rule, in our view is not come out from the plain language of the Rule. May be, because of strict vigilance in the examination hall the candidate was not in a position to take out the papers from the pencil box and use the same. The very fact that she took the papers relevant to the examination in the paper concerned and was found to be in possession of the same by the invigilator in the examination hall is sufficient to prove the charge of using unfair means by her in the examination under the Rule." * 11. An argument was taken by the learned Counsel that under the norms, a note is appended, which reads thus :- "But these punishments are not meted out in a routine manner, but on a case-to-case basis, upon the recommendations of the Discipline and Welfare Committee." * The argument is that merely because in the guideline such a punishment is directed to be given, the same cannot be imposed, unless there is an application of mind. The learned Counsel argued that in this case, the Discipline and Welfare Committee has automatically imposed the punishment and the discretion as provided under the Rules has not been exercised. Each and every individual cases will have to be discussed separately before awarding the punishment. 12. I do not find any substance in this contention. The respondent has filed the Minutes of the Discipline and Welfare Committee and also the discussion. These indicate that the Discipline and Welfare Committee itself recommended that the petitioner must be given the punishment imposed, as per the guidelines or norms and they have applied their mind insofar as the petitioner also is concerned. 13. Whether the punishment is sever or not, it is not within the jurisdiction of this Court to consider, for, I have said that it is a matter between the student and the University. 14. In a recent decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in Kiran Sisodia v. Jiwaji University, Gwalior, 1989 AIR(MP) 18. 13. Whether the punishment is sever or not, it is not within the jurisdiction of this Court to consider, for, I have said that it is a matter between the student and the University. 14. In a recent decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in Kiran Sisodia v. Jiwaji University, Gwalior, 1989 AIR(MP) 18. Their Lordships said that 'In matters concerning academic standards of University, principles of natural justice cannot be allowed to have a long rope so as to enable students to use the rope to make hoops and loops encouraging them to escape the consequences of using unfair means. The limit must be drawn to which the rope can allow the petitioner to stake her claim'. 15. The petitioner cannot contend that the Discipline and Welfare Committee did not hear him. He was given a personal hearing and at the time when he was caught, he admitted the possession of incriminating material. The only explanation given by him was that he has not used or intended to use the same. 16. Taking into consideration the facts stated above, I do not think that it is a fit case where this Court should interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 17. One more circumstance is brought to my notice by learned Counsel for the respondent. The learned Counsel submitted that the writ petition has now become infructuous since the petitioner has been allowed to sit for the sixth semester in August, 1997 and the punishment imposed on him is already met. The contention also cannot be said to be without force. Even otherwise, I do not find that there is any merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. Petitions dismissed.