ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF JODHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal is directed against the judgment dated 8. 4. 1985 dismissing the writ petition.

(2.) THE facts of the instant case lies within a very narrow compass. THE petitioner passed the M. Com. (Previous) Examination in July, 1982. He was not satisfied with the valuation of marks in third paper i. e. , Industrial Relation and Personnel Management wherein he had secured only 32 marks out of 100. Thus, he applied for re-evaluation. THE result of the re-evaluation was declared on 4. 11. 1982 and marks of the petitioner were reduced from 32 to 21 and as such he failed in the third paper in M. Com. (Previous ). THE scheduled last date for submitting the examination form for M. Com. (Final) Examination, 1983 was 5. 11. 1982. He submitted the application and also deposited the examination fee on 5. 11. 1982. THE petitioner also applied for permission to appear at the left out paper of M. Com. (Previous) simultaneously with the M. Com. (Final) Examination, 1983. THE petitioner deposited the examination fee for appearing in third paper of M. Com. (Previous) Examination, 1983 on 9. 11. 1982. THE University permitted the petitioner to appear in the M. Com. (Final) Examination 1983 as well a for the left out paper of Industrial Relation and p--- Management of M. Com. (Previous) Examination, 1983. THE petitioner was declared passed for M. Com. (Final) Examination, 1983 he also secured 40 marks in the third left out paper of M. Com. (Previous) Examination. However, a notice dated 28. 7. 1983 was issued to him to show cause as to why his M. Com. (Final) Examination, 1983 be not cancelled as he had appeared in examination in a deceitful manner knowing fully well that he had failed in M. Com. (Previous) Examination. THE petitioner submitted a letter dated 28. 7. 1983 stating inter alia that he had appeared at the M. Com. (Final) Examination with the permission of the University. He also denied the allegation of appearing in the M. Com. (Final) Examination by deceitful means. THE petitioner also took up the plea that University was estopped from going back from his representation and to play with his career. Petitioner also asked for the personal hearing. However, the University in the meeting of Syndicate dated 22. 11. 1983 resolved to cancel the M. Com. (Final) Examination of the petitioner. THE petitioner was informed of the said decision under the communication dated 2. 2. 1984.

(3.) IN Anil Baipadithaya and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others (3), the petitioner had already studied upto two years of M. B. B. S. course. The court also found that members of S. S. C. though equally guilty, since promoted and in the circumstances of the case it was not justified and equitable to punish only party viz. , the appellants for the fraud. The court observed thus :- " On the State counsel being asked by us as to whether the State is prepared to restore the status quo ante regarding the posts which the members concerned of the SSC were holding at that time, could shoulder is shown. Shri Nagaraja states that the officers at this stage cannot be punished without giving them opportunity. It is really not a question of punishment to them, but of taking back the reward given. As the State is not prepared to do so, we do not think if we would be justified in punishing only one party to the fraud. This would not be equitable. So, even though we strongly decry and condemn the fraud played by the appellants, the present is not an occasion where any punishment is deserved at the behest of one who is not prepared to punish the main culprit, as the members of the SSC have to be regarded, because, but for their active role, the appellants would not have succeeded in their highly objectionable and deplorable act. IN not allowing the cancellation to take effect, we have also noted that the appellants have studied for about two years by now and their action had otherwise not deprived any other merited student of his legitimate seat. "