Decided on February 15,2005

Rajshekar Singh Chandel Appellant
Guru Ghasi Das University And Another. Respondents


L.C.Bhadoo, J. - (1.) By this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner who is a student of B.Sc. Part II of Chaitanya Science and Arts College, Pamgarh, has questioned the legality and propriety of the decision of the respondents to cancel his result of the subject Zoology of B.Sc. Part I on the ground of mass copying. Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner took admission in the year 2003 in B.Sc. Part I in Chaitanya Science and Arts College, Pamgarh, which is affiliated with Guru Ghasidas University, respondent No. 1 herein. Thereafter, in year 2004, examination of B.Sc. Part I was conducted by respondent No. 1 at Pamgarh Centre in the same college, the petitioner appeared in that examination and result of the same was declared on 20th July. 2004. The petitioner was declared pass with 48.71% marks and mark sheet of the same was delivered to the petitioner on 4.8.2004. The petitioner took admission in B.Sc. Part II and pursuing his studies in B.Sc. Part II. Thereafter, the examination of B.Sc. Part I of the subject Zoology which was conducted on 10th May, 2004 was cancelled on the ground that there was mass copying at the Pamgarh Examination Centre Le. Chaitanaya Science and Arts College, Pamgarh. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 conducted examination of Zoology paper in the same centre and most of the students appeared in the examination, but some of the students did not appear. All the students protested the cancellation of examination of the subject Zoology.
(2.) Further case of the petitioner is that looking to the future of the petitioner and the students of B.Sc. Zoology it is very important that proper intimation should have been given to all the students by the Pamgarh College, but proper intimation was not given by the Colleges as well as the University. Since the petitioner was allowed to take admission in the second year B.Sc. and the result of first year B.Sc. was already declared, he was shocked after hearing that the respondents had not accepted his examination form for appearing in B.Sc. Part II examination. He made a representation on 5.1.2005, but there was no response on behalf of the respondent College or University. The action of the respondents is arbitrary, improper and illegal. Cancellation of the examination of B.Sc. Part I Zoology after issuance of the mark sheet to the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, it has been prayed that the respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to appear in B.Sc. Part lI examination and quash the notification regarding cancellation of first year examination of Zoology paper.
(3.) Return has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 University in which it has been mentioned that examination of various courses of higher education of the Session 2003-2004 were held at different examination centres in the colleges within the jurisdiction of respondent No. I during the period from March, 2004 to May, 2004 Chaitanya Vigyan Avam Kala Mahavidyalaya, Pamgarh, a private college. was also made one of the centres of examination from where the students of that college in different class appeared for examination of different subjects as per the schedule of examination circulated by respondent No. 1. The examination of B.Sc. Part I of Zoology 1st paper was conducted on 10.5.2004 at the said examination center. Answer sheet of the said subject were sent to the examiner and the examiner while checking the answer sheets found some peculiar features common in all the answer sheets of center No. 91 i.e. Chaitanya Vigyan Avam Kala Mahavidyalaya, Pamgarh, pertaining to B.Sc. Part I Zoology 1st paper and it was found that the answers written in all the answer sheets were verbatim same. It was also found that even the words of beginning of the answer change of round' graphs and end of paragraphs were also verbatim same. It was also found that the mistakes in the answer sheets were found verbatim same. In addition to this, several features showing that all the answers were common and were written in the same manner containing the same mistake, omitting same things were found. Having received such a report of the examiner made on 19.6.2004, serious view was taken by the registrar of the University and opinion of another senior Professor was obtained. The other examination also examined the matter and found that most of the answer sheets show similarly and submitted his report on 28.7.2004. Then the matter was placed before the Unfair Means Committee of the University and the committee after meticulous examination of the entire material, answer sheets and report of the examiner had decided to issue show cause notice to the Superintendent of Examination, and Principal of the College. Copy of the show cause notice dated 13.9.2004 is Annexure R- 1. Replies of the Principal and other invigilators were received which are Annexures R-2 to R-4. Thereafter, the Unfair Means Committee in its meeting held on 24.9.2004 resolved to cancel the examination of particular center and accordingly, made recommendations. Copy of the minutes is Annexure R-5. Thereafter, recommendations of the Unfair Means Committee were placed before the Executive Council in its meeting dated 14.10.2004 and as per Resolution No. 10 the Executive Council accepted the recommendation and directed for action according to the recommendations. Thereupon, notification dated 28.10.2004 was issued to the effect that examination of B.Sc. Part I Zoology 1st paper held at Center No. 91 was cancelled. Copy of the notification in Annexure R-6. On 11.11.2004, revised result (Annexure R-7) was also notified which was received by the Principal of the college. It was decided to conduct the examination of the same subject again taking into consideration the career of the students and a decision to that effect was notified on the College notice Board, and the students submitted their examination forms. The petitioner's contention is wholly unacceptable that he did not know about it. As a matter of fact, the petitioner is making false statement because as has been informed, the petitioner fully knew about all this development of cancellation of examination and holding fresh examination. In fact, he himself had filed the examination form also, photocopy of the same is Annexure R-9, and Roll No. 90655 was allotted to the petitioner, but he failed to appear in the examination, which was held on 23.11.2004 and result of the same was declared on 13.1.2005 which is Annexure R- 11. Even those students who could not pass in this examination, considering that examination as main examination, a supplementary examination was also declared vide notification dated 13.1.2005, and in that examination also 12 students has again appeared which was held on 21.2.2005.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.