RAJESH H.SHUKLA, J. - (1.)THE present petition is filed by the petitioner under Art. 14 and 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under the provisions of Ayurved University Act, 1965 and the Ordinances made thereunder for the prayers, inter alia, that appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued declaring that the impugned disciplinary proceeding culminating in cancellation of the result of the exams in two subjects and issuance of the Statement of Marks dated 21.2.2014 showing the petitioner in Ayurvedacharya (BAMS) -Second Professional Examination 2013 as ATKT, as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of Ordinance 121A. It is also prayed that the respondent University may be directed to declare the result of the two subjects of the petitioner on the basis of the results and issue a fresh Statement of Marks, on the grounds stated in the memo of petition in detail.
(2.)HEARD learned advocate Ms. Vidhi Bhatt for the petitioner and learned Sr. Counsel Shri Percy Kavina appearing with learned advocate Shri PM Dave for the respondent University.
(3.)LEARNED advocate Ms. Bhatt referred to the papers at length and particularly to the communication dated 10.2.2014 by the respondent University regarding the charges for the irregularity and submitted that the charges are vague as no specific charges have been mentioned. It was submitted that it is not even stated that the petitioner has copied from the book or the paper of the other students. She tried to submit that as the charge itself is vague, the decision taken based on such charge cannot be sustained. It was contended that though the charges for the irregularity or unfair means has been made, the same are not specifically stated in the charges and therefore the opportunity to meet with such charges has been denied. She tried to submit that in the affidavit -in -reply referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court it is alleged that it is not any particular individual who is charged for unfair means but it is the conduct of the students in copying at a mass scale. However, learned advocate Ms. Bhatt submitted that the statement is contradictory. It was further submitted that in any case the petitioner could have been proceeded under the provisions of Ordinance 121A of the respondent University and the respondent University is under an obligation to hold the inquiry proceedings in accordance with law as provided in O. 121A. Learned advocate Ms. Bhatt submitted that as there is no such inquiry, the decision which has been taken is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the rules of natural justice. Learned advocate Ms. Bhatt strenuously submitted that on what basis the respondent has come to the conclusion about "unfair means" is not explained and therefore the rules of natural justice are denied. She emphasised that otherwise it would have been possible for the petitioner to explain. She has also referred to O. 121 produced on record and also O. 121A and submitted that the procedure has been prescribed which has not been followed. She has referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha and ors., 1970 AIR(SC) 1269 and emphasised the observations made in para 13, 14.
"It was also also said that even if the inquiry involved a large number of persons the Committee should frame proper regulations for the conduct of such inquiries but not deny the opportunity. "
She has also referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. Allahabad v. Ghanshyam Das Gupta and ors., 1962 AIR(SC) 1110 and referred to the observations made in paras 11 -13. It was submitted that when there is exercise of power under the statutory provision it is a quasi -judicial exercise and therefore the rules of natural justice have to be followed providing an opportunity to meet with the charges.