Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2136 (MAD)

S. Arif Mohammed v. Vice Chancellor Tamil Nadu

2012-04-27

K.CHANDRU

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner, claimed to be the final year student in the Stanley Medical College, has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to publish the final year results of the petitioner's Registration No.52071316 for the MBBS examination held during February 2012 on the basis of his representations dated 30.03.2012 and 16.04.2012 and to pass appropriate orders. 2. In the representations which were referred to in the prayer, it is stated that the petitioner was surprised to see that his result was withheld and he is not aware of the reason for which the result was withheld and because of withholding of the results, his internship is getting delayed. Therefore, he wants his results to be published and he has also sent a telegram to the University. When he did not get any response, the present writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner. 3. When the matter came up on 18.04.2012, this Court directed notice to be served on the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University and accordingly, Mrs.Narmadha Sampath took notice for the University and she has also filed an affidavit sworn to by the Registrar of The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University dated 26.04.2012. The case of the University was that the petitioner appeared for the final year MBBS Part II examinations held in February 2012. However, when he wrote the examination in the Centre in which he appeared, an anonymous call was received informing that the students of final MBBS Part II from Stanley Medical College were indulging in copying through Mobile Phones and Blue Tooth Accessories inside the examination hall with Hi-tech devices. Thereafter, one student from the Stanley Medical College submitted the list containing the names of 10 students who have indulged in copying. The name of the petitioner is also mentioned in the said list. The student, who gave the complaint, also handed over the materials used for copying. Complaints were also received from the said candidate who submitted the materials used for copying through E-mail. 4. The University immediately convened a meeting of the Examination Disciplinary Committee as constituted under the Statute framed under the Act for conducting a detailed enquiry. Explanation was also called for from the Dean of the Stanley Medical College. Complaints were also received from the said candidate who submitted the materials used for copying through E-mail. 4. The University immediately convened a meeting of the Examination Disciplinary Committee as constituted under the Statute framed under the Act for conducting a detailed enquiry. Explanation was also called for from the Dean of the Stanley Medical College. Since Hi-tech devices are used, the University has also approached the Cyber Crime Police for helping them in unearthing the examination probe. The final outcome of the enquiry of the Examination Disciplinary Committee is still awaited. The Cyber Crime Police is also conducting further investigation. A request is also made to the Commissioner of Police for helping them in this regard. 5. In view of all these prima facie materials and the information received, the results of 10 candidates including the petitioner was withheld. It is only because of this reason, the University is unable to publish the results of the petitioner. In respect of other candidates, the results were published by the University on 28.03.2012. Subsequently, in order to prevent malpractice in theory examinations, the University has given directions to the examination centres to fix mobile phone jammers and also to scan the candidates with metal detectors before entering the examination halls. The Post Graduate examination centres are also interchanged among the three city medical colleges and Vigilance Squad was appointed to all medical colleges from April 2012. 6. In the light of the stand taken by the respondent University, the prayer in the writ petition cannot be countenanced by this Court. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.