- (1.) This appeal has been preferred by the Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'University', the Vice-Chancellor and the Executive Council of the University against an interim order passed by the learned single Judge dated 11th March, 2010, whereunder the learned single Judge has called upon the parties to exchange their affidavits and until further orders of the Court, has stayed the operation of the decision taken by the Executive Council of the University dated 13th January, 2010.
(2.) Mr. P. S. Baghel, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. Gautam Baghel, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, has submitted that only on two grounds the interim order has been passed by the learned single Judge; firstly, non-obtaining the previous sanction of the State Government and secondly, non-affording the opportunity of hearing to the management of the institution before passing the order cancelling the affiliation of the institution by the Executive Council of the University under Section 37(8) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter in short called as the 'Act, 1973'). However, he proposed at first that if the respondent-Committee of Management did not get any opportunity to place its case, though notices were served, then they can be given opportunity to present their case to the Vice-Chancellor and the decision of the Executive Council will be connected with the decision of Vice-Chancellor. There is no dearth of power to the Vice-Chancellor. Moreover, the representation dated 16th January, 2010, on which the writ petitioner-respondent No. 4 is placing reliance, is addressed to the Vice-Chancellor of the University. He has further stated that though the State Government was not informed of the decision of the Executive Council, but the State Government appointed the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi to enquire into the charges and submit its report. Mr. Baghel has relied upon two judgments of the Supreme Court on the factual issue, i.e., for mass-copying etc. The first judgment is Controller of Examinations and Ors. v. G.S. Sunder and Anr., 1993 Supp3 SCC 82. Paragraph 10 of such judgment, which is relevant for the purpose, is quoted hereinbelow: 10. We have given our careful consideration to the above submissions. One thing must be put beyond doubt, in matters of enforcement of discipline this Court must be very slow in interference. After all, the authorities in charge of education whose duty it is to conduct examinations fairly and properly, know best how to deal with situations of this character. One cannot import fine principles of law and weigh the same in golden scales. In the present system of education, the system of examinations is the best suited to assess the progress of the student so long as they are fairly conducted. Interference by Court in every case may lead to unhappy results making the system of examination a farce. For instance, we cannot but strongly condemn copying in the examination which has grown into canker of mass copying. Such unhealthy practices which are like poisonous weeds in the field of education must be rooted out in order that the innocent and the intelligent students are not affected. We feel that: The hour has come when we must clear; The educational fields from poison and from fear; We must remould our standards-build them higher; And clear the air as though by cleaning fire; Weed out the damning traitors to education; Restore her to her ancient place of awe.
(3.) It appears from the above judgment that the question of principles of natural justice cannot be said to be violated and in any such circumstance, technicalities of law should not be imported to further the cause of a student, who was indulged in malpractice. The second judgment, on which Mr. Baghel has relied upon, is reported in Director (Studies), Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Hotel Management, Nutrition and Catering Technology, Chandigarh and Ors. v. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, 2009 1 SCC 59. Paragraph 27 of the judgment is quoted hereinbelow: 27. Before parting with this case, we would like to refer to the decisions of this Court which has repeatedly held that the High Court should not ordinarily interfere with the orders passed in educational matters by domestic Tribunals set up by educational institutions vide Board of High School and Intermediate Education v. Bagleshwar Prasad (vide AIR para 12); J.P. Kulshrestha (Dr.) v. Allahabad University vide SCC para 17 : AIR para 17 and Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University vide SCC para 7 : AIR para 7. We wish to reiterate the view taken in the above decisions, and further state that the High Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the functioning and orders of the educational authorities unless there is clear violation of some statutory rule or legal principle. Also, there must be strict purity in the examinations of educational institutions and no sympathy or leniency should be shown to candidates who resort to unfair means in the examinations.;