C. P. JAGADEESH v. MYSORE UNIVERSITY — 1998 DIGILAW 729 (KAR)

G. C. BHARUKA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners in these petitions are the students of M. B. B. S. Course studying in respondent-J. S. S. Medical College. They are aggrieved by the decision of the Syndicate of the respondent-Mysore University dated 18-9-98. On the charge of malpractice their examination of July, 1998 has been invalidated and they have been further debarred from taking any of the University examination for one more attempt (subsequent session of the examination ). According to the University authorities the petitioners were found guilty of identification of registration number on the answer scripts. Accordingly they were issued show cause notice requiring them to explain as to why appropriate action should not be taken against them for the said charge. The petitioners appeared before the Malpractices Committee and after perusal of the answer scripts they admitted in writing of identification of registration mark on the answer scripts but according to them it was unintentional. ( 2 ) ). I had called for the answer scripts of all the petitioners as also the proceedings of the Malpractices Committee and the resolution of the Syndicate accepting the recommendation of the Malpractices Committee which has been produced before the Court. Just for the satisfaction of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, I myself perused the answer scripts and also allowed the learned Counsel to see it for themselves. The answer scripts clearly show that contrary to the printed instructions on the answer book a conscious effort was made to see that the registration number appears on the second page of the answer book. It is clear to the bare eyes that it has been successfully done by using a ball point pen though the answers have been written in ink pen. In my opinion it is not necessary for this Court to enter into the question of intention with which the said efforts were made. But the facts remain that the petitioners had tried to disclose their identities in the answer books. ( 3 ) INSTRUCTION No. 2 printed on the answer book reads thus :"instruction No. 2 : Write your registration No. only in the space provided for the purpose and no where else. Do not disclose your identity in any other manner. Do not write your name in any part of the answer book. ( 3 ) INSTRUCTION No. 2 printed on the answer book reads thus :"instruction No. 2 : Write your registration No. only in the space provided for the purpose and no where else. Do not disclose your identity in any other manner. Do not write your name in any part of the answer book. " ( 4 ) THE impugned penalties have been imposed upon the petitioners under clause 4 of the Mysore University Students (Disciplinary and Control) Ordinance, 1989. This Ordinance has been framed under sub-clauses (d), (l) and (q) of sub-section (2) of Section 25 read with Section 37 (f) and (p) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 (in short "the Act" ). The relevant clauses of sub-section (2) of Section 25 i. e. , (d), (i) and (q) read as follows :"25. Powers of Syndicate.- (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the Syndicate shall have the following powers, namely : (a ). . . . . . to. . . . . . . (c ). . . . . . . . (d) to make arrangements for the conduct of examinations in the prescribed manner; (e ). . . . . . to. . . . . . . (k ). . . . . . . . (l) to supervise and control the residence and discipline of the students of the University and to make arrangements for promoting their health and well being; (m ). . . . . . to. . . . . . . (p ). . . . . . . . (q) to exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as may be conferred or imposed on it by or under this Act. Similarly clauses (f) and (p) of Section 37 reads as follows :"37. Ordinances.- Subject to the provisions of this Act and the Statutes, the Ordinances may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely :- (a) to (e ). . . . . . . . (f) conduct of examinations, including the term of office and the duties of examining bodies, examiners and moderators ; (g) to (o ). . . . . . . . (p) all other matters which by this Act or by the Statutes are to be or may be provided for by the Ordinance. . . . . . . . (f) conduct of examinations, including the term of office and the duties of examining bodies, examiners and moderators ; (g) to (o ). . . . . . . . (p) all other matters which by this Act or by the Statutes are to be or may be provided for by the Ordinance. ( 5 ) SINCE an argument has been advanced by Mr. Chidanandayya, learned Counsel for one of the petitioners in the case that the punishment of debarment from examination could have been awarded by the Syndicate only on the basis of the report of the Vice-Chancellor as provided under Section 62 of the Act, I may quote Section 62 as well, which reads thus :"62. Discipline.- (1) The final authority responsible for maintenance of discipline among the students of the University shall be the Vice-Chancellor. His directions in that behalf shall be carried out by the heads of colleges, hostels and other institutions. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),- (a) the punishment of debarring a student from examinations shall, on the report of the Vice-Chancellor be considered and imposed by the Syndicate; and (b) the punishment of rustication from a college or a hostel of an institution shall, be imposed by the head of the college or hostel or institution concerned:provided that no such punishment shall be imposed without giving to the student concerned a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him. ( 6 ) IN the present case as noticed above the punishment has been awarded after giving due opportunities of hearing to the petitioners and on obtaining the written explanation with regard to the charges. Therefore, the petitioners cannot successfully assail the impugned orders on the ground of either procedural infirmity or non-observance of principles of natural justice. ( 7 ) MR. Chidanandayya, learned Counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that since the Malpractices Committee had initiated the proceedings on the basis of certain reports sent by the evaluators therefore in all fairness, a copy of the report ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. He has also submitted that the Committee ought to have given an opportunity for leading evidence. Chidanandayya, learned Counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that since the Malpractices Committee had initiated the proceedings on the basis of certain reports sent by the evaluators therefore in all fairness, a copy of the report ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. He has also submitted that the Committee ought to have given an opportunity for leading evidence. In my opinion the said submission cannot be of any consequence because it is not in dispute that whatever may be the intention, the petitioners had admittedly disclosed their identity in the answer scripts contrary to the instructions. Moreover the petitioners had made no request before the Malpractices Committee either for examining witnesses or for cross-examination of any person to test his credentials. Therefore, such arguments are not available to the petitioners. So far as the plea based on Section 62 is concerned in my opinion it is apparently misconceived because Section 62 of the Act, as noticed above, is meant to have been incorporated in the Act to maintain the campus discipline and has nothing to do with the malpractice pertaining to the examinations. The plea appears to have been raised only for technical purposes. ( 8 ) SO far as practice of trying to disclose the identity in answer scripts is concerned this has been deprecated by the Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Public Service Commission v. B. M. Vijaya Shankar, AIR 1992 SC 952 , wherein also for charges similar to the one involved here in these writ petitions, the examinations were cancelled. In paragraph 3 of the judgment it has been held that :"such instructions are issued to ensure fairness in the examination. In the fast deteriorating standards of honesty and morality in the society the insistence by the Commission that no attempt should be made of identification of the candidate by writing his roll number anywhere is in the larger public interest. It is well known that the first page of the answer book on which roll number is written is removed and a fictitious code number is provided to rule out any effort of any approach to the examiner. Not that a candidate who has written his roll number would have approached the examiner. He may have committed a bona fide mistake. But that is not material. Not that a candidate who has written his roll number would have approached the examiner. He may have committed a bona fide mistake. But that is not material. What was attempted to be achieved by the instruction was to minimise any possibility or chance of any abuse. Larger public interest demands insistence of observance of instruction rather than its breach. "in the above case the Supreme Court has gone to the extent of holding that in the case of this nature even the requirement of compliance with the principles of natural justice can be excluded. ( 9 ) THE Supreme Court in the case of Prem Prakash Kaluniya v. The Punjab University, AIR 1972 SC 1408 at paragraph 11 has held that :"a good deal of emphasis had been laid on the answers which were given by the two candidates and our attention had been invited to the discrepancies between the details of the answers contained in the two answer books. It was further pointed out that the appellant had made rough calculations at the back of the answer book which showed that he had worked out the answer on his own without the aid of any other source which could be regarded as common from which the other candidate was alleged to have copied. These, however, are matters on which the Court cannot entertain a petition under Article 226. It was for the Standing Committee to arrive at its own conclusion on the evidence before it and the same cannot be re-examined except on very limited grounds which have not been established. We are also unable to see how the finding of the Standing Committee could be regarded as vague or as having been based on no evidence. " ( 10 ) IN the above view of the matter I am of the opinion that in order to maintain the fairness and purity in the University examinations, it is essential to have an effective check on the tendencies of polluting the fairness of such examinations and a strong message must go to the students community as well as the unscrupulous evaluators that such nefarious activities cannot be allowed to flourish and continue and immediate stringent steps will be taken to nib such tendencies in the bud. Moreover as has been held by the Supreme Court, in academic matters particularly involving discipline at the examinations, the High Court should be very slow in interfering with the decisions of the disciplinary authorities under Art. 226 of the Constitution. A reasonable view has been taken on facts by the academic authorities that should be allowed to stand. ( 11 ) THE last question which has been raised is regarding the interpretation of the impugned order communicated by the Registrar (Evaluation), Sri Jayakumar Patil, Sri K. Raghavendra Rao and Sri Chidanandayya, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners have sought to contend that as per the communication the examinations of the petitioners have been cancelled only in a particular subject, i. e. , the answer scripts wherein had contained the identification of registration marks and, therefore, the University should be directed to declare the results (in) other two subjects. I have seen the original recommendations of the Malpractices Committee which have been duly approved by the Syndicate. As per the recommendations the entire examination has been invalidated. In that view of the matter any error in the communication letter cannot be held as overriding the original decision taken by the Syndicate. ( 12 ) FOR the abovesaid reasons I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order under writ jurisdiction. Writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. Petitions dismissed. --- *** --- .