Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 424 (JK)

Vishavjeet Verma v. University Of Jammu

2011-08-20

J.P.Singh, Virender Singh

body2011
Virender Singh, J. 1. Appellant appeared in all the papers of the annual examination of B.Sc Part-III, 2009 (Session-Annual) under Roll No. 1190314. Before declaration of his result, he received a notice bearing No. Conf/UFM/9/1811-75 dated 20th July, 2009 addressed by Assistant Registrar (Conf./UFM), University of Jammu conveying him that his name was figuring in the list of candidates whose answer scripts were noticed to have distinctive marks of identification in subject Mathematics Paper `A' held on 25th of May, 2009 and was asked to appear before the competent authority on 27th of July, 2009 to defend his case, pursuant whereto, he appeared before the competent authority and submitted that he had started writing his name on the answer script inadvertently and before he could write his full name, he realized his mistake and tried to erase the same by his own pen. He further pleaded that his name was not legible. Ultimately, Controller of Examination issued notification No. 29 of 2009 ordering cancellation of all the papers for B.Sc final examination, 2009 (Session-Annual), aggrieved whereby, he preferred an appeal before the University Syndicate in August 2009. Without waiting for the outcome of the appeal, he knocked at the door of the writ court vide OWP No. 1062 of 2009 seeking quashment of the aforesaid notification (29 of 2009) issued by respondent No. 2 on several grounds including the violation of Statute 3(a) of the Chapter XXXIX, Statute 33 of the Chapter XL, Statute 14(5) of Chapter XLI as also Statute 5(a) of the chapter XXXIX of the University Statutes. 2. The respondents filed their reply/objections to the main writ petition taking the ground that the Statute on which the reliance was placed by the appellant was amended w.e.f 03-11-2006 whereby adding Statute 3(d) and 3(e) contained in Chapter XXXIX of University Statute. It was further the case of the respondents that the case of the appellant falls in Statute 4(j) and 4(u), which tantamounts to unfair means misconduct and, therefore, it was within the competence of the prescribed authority to cancel all the papers of a particular session. 3. The learned Writ Court after entering into a detailed discussion with regard to the stand taken by the either side and after going through the original record submitted by the University, ultimately dismissed the writ petition vide judgment/order dated 16th of August 2010. 3. The learned Writ Court after entering into a detailed discussion with regard to the stand taken by the either side and after going through the original record submitted by the University, ultimately dismissed the writ petition vide judgment/order dated 16th of August 2010. Aggrieved by the judgment, the appellant has filed this Instant Letters Patent Appeal. 4. It is worth noticing that the appeal filed by the appellant before Syndicate also came to be dismissed during the pendency of the writ petition, reference thereto is made in the impugned judgment also. 5. Heard Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. W.S. Nargal, Advocate, learned counsel for the University. As we had felt the necessity of perusing the original record once again, Mr. Nargal, on our direction, has brought the same. It was retained by us. 6. We have re-examined the case of the appellant within the ambit of Statute 3(d) and Statute 4(j) contained in Chapter XXXIX of the University Statute. 7. In the first instance, let us appreciate, on the facts available on record, whether the case of the appellant falls within the Statute 4(j) contained in Chapter XXXIX of the University Statute relating to misconduct/unfair means in the examination. 8. The case of the appellant himself is that he inadvertently wrote his name on the answer script and when realized his mistake, he tried to erase the same by his own pen and thereafter it was not legible. The original answer sheet of paper Math-A available to us belies the plea of the appellant. In the column `subject', appellant's name is written as Vishavjeet. May be on the name, an attempt has been made to put one single line by the pen in the middle of the name and thereafter word `Math' is written, but the name of the appellant on the answer script can be read by us very clearly without any difficulty. It is visible to naked eye. So the defence of the appellant that he scored off his name, which was not legible, is not available to him. Appreciating the case of the appellant from that angle, it simply falls within the ambit of Statute 4(j), which deals with an act of Misconduct/unfair means by a candidate during examination. 9. Let us now advert to Statute 3(d) of University Statute. Appreciating the case of the appellant from that angle, it simply falls within the ambit of Statute 4(j), which deals with an act of Misconduct/unfair means by a candidate during examination. 9. Let us now advert to Statute 3(d) of University Statute. Perusal of the record reveals that the entire matter was considered by the concerned authority strictly within the parameters of the Statute by affording the appellant an opportunity to defend himself. Admittedly, he had appeared before the competent authority and submitted his explanation. It is thereafter only the Controller of Examination cancelled all the papers of the appellant for annual session 2009 vide Notification No. 29 of 2009. So it cannot be said to be a case where the appellant is punished unheard. It would not be out of place to mention here that even otherwise the appellant has not taken any plea of not being heard in the grounds of appeal filed by him before the University Syndicate and simply prayed for a sympathetic view, admitting his fault. Examining the case of the appellant on that yardstick, there appears to be no violation of Statute 3(d) as contained in Chapter XXXIX of the University Statute before his case was put up before the concerned Committee for appropriate action. 10. Mr. Sharma lastly submits that in the given circumstances the punishment awarded to the appellant is too harsh. According to him, instead of canceling all the papers, the University could cancel only one paper i.e Math-A in which some misconduct was alleged, in particular when the appellant had pleaded mercy admitting his fault. He further contends that admittedly, the case of the appellant falls in Statute 4(j) for which the punishment to be awarded to a candidate as per Statute 5(d), can be cancellation of paper in theory in the concerned course/subject or any number of courses/subjects upto all courses/subjects of that examination, but if we read punishment provided for this type of mis-conduct, University Statute itself provides a leverage to the competent authority to impose less punishment depending upon the facts of each case. He then submits that if we compare the punishment provided for violation of paragraphs (f), (i-i), (j), (m), (p) and (r) of Statute 4, which also deals with mis-conduct and unfair means, the only punishment provided is cancellation of all the papers of the concerned subjects/courses of that examination and also disqualification from appearing or passing that university examination for a period of one year. Therefore, the University in its wisdom has kept different dozes of punishment for committing an act of mis-conduct/unfair means falling in different paragraphs of the Statute 4 contained in Chapter XXXIX. The learned counsel thus submits that the case of the appellant deserves to be considered as an exceptional case for lesser punishment on its individual facts. 11. We are conscious of the settled legal position that the Court should not ordinarily interfere with the functioning and order of educational institutions unless there is a clear violation of some statutory rules or legal principles. There should be strict discipline in academic matters for maintaining the high standard of education as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Director (Studies), Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Hotel Management, Nutrition & Catering Technology, Chandigarh & others v. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan reported as (2009) 1 Supreme court Cases 59. 12. In the aforesaid case, the challenge was laid to the legality of certain rules where the punishment was provided and that the candidate had confessed his guilt also, which was ultimately considered by the writ court in his favour for granting relief. This approach was ultimately not approved by the Apex Court observing that there must be purity in examination and no sympathy or leniency should be shown to the candidates, who resort to unfair means. It was further observed by their Lordships that we have to be very strict in maintaining high academic standards and maintaining academic discipline and academic rigour if our country is to progress. Sympathy for students using unfair means is wholly out of place. In the aforesaid case, their Lordships dealt with the doctrine of proportionality vis-a-vis the interference in the educational matters and held that it is true that when a person confesses his guilt, it is often treated as a mitigating circumstance and calls for lesser punishment if that is permissible. However, this is not an absolute rule and will not apply in all kind of cases. 13. However, this is not an absolute rule and will not apply in all kind of cases. 13. On a specific query put to Mr. Sharma, whether the appellant has appeared in all the papers of the next annual session, he submits that he has chosen not to appear. 14. We have appreciated the present case following the ratio of the aforesaid judgment and find no substance in the submissions made by Mr. Sharma for awarding lesser punishment. 15. As observed hereinabove, there is no violation of any statutory rules or legal principles in this case. No doubt, as per the Statute 5(d), the competent authority could impose a lesser punishment to the appellant declaring only one paper (Math-A) as cancelled instead of canceling all the papers, but it was not the case of the appellant only which was to be considered in isolation, as there were many other cases of the similar nature in which same punishment has been awarded. This all is borne out from the record. So, in our considered view, the competent authority was justified in taking a uniform decision for observing purity in examination. Malpractices in examination in educational institutions are to be curbed with iron hand. Therefore, in our view, the case of the appellant cannot be segregated as an exceptional case. As stated above, his appeal filed before University Syndicate for a sympathetic view also stands rejected. This is the final authority. Considering the case of the appellant from all these aspects, it cannot be said that the punishment awarded to him is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct attributed to him, calling for any sympathy or leniency. 16. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, the notification bearing No. 29 of 2009 whereby it declares all the papers taken by the appellant in B.Sc Part-III examination, 2009 (Session-Annual) as cancelled, does not warrant interference on any count. There is, therefore, no merit in this Letters Patent Appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.