- (1.) By means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the order passed by Unfair Means Committee, cancelling the result of the examination of B.A. Part II which was held in 1990 and in which the petitioner appeared. The petitioner was a regular student of Allahabad Degree College, Allahabad which is affiliated to the University of Allahabad. He had filled the Examination form for appearing in B.A. II of 1990 and he was allotted Roll No. 46626 and the subjects offered by him were Ancient History, Education and Military Science. On 9-8-1990 when the petitioner was answering the First paper of Ancient History, flying squad of the University of Allahabad visited the examination hall. The flying squad recovered a piece of paper containing hand script from inside the desk on which the petitioner had placed his answer book and was answering the question paper. The answer book of the petitioner was taken possession of by the flying squad along with the alleged paper recovered and thereafter action was taken against the petitioner and his examination for the year 1990 has been cancelled. The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents cancelling his result.
(2.) In this petition, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the University and I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S. N. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the University. Both the learned counsel are agreed that this petition may be finally disposed of at this stage. Shri Upadhyaya also placed before me the original record pertaining to the action taken against the petitioner.
(3.) I have perused the record thoroughly. On 9-8-1990 immediately after recovering the piece of paper from the desk certain questions were put to the petitioner. They were noted in the Form prescribed for giving information relating to use of unfair means during the examination. Though in his answer the petitioner admitted that the alleged paper was recovered from inside the desk but he denied very categorically that the alleged paper, belonged to him. In column 5 the examiner also recorded that from the said paper nothing has been copied in the answer book though it contained material relating to the paper concerned. The petitioner was given a show cause notice and he submitted his reply. Along with the counter affidavit, reply of the petitioner and information submitted in the prescribed form relating to the use of unfair means has been filed. In his explanation the petitioner has alleged that the paper was recovered from the ground and it appears that the paper was thrown by some of the students which was lying about a meter away from the petitioner and it was picked up by the flying squad. The petitioner was quietly answering the questions unmindful of the presence of the flying squad. The alleged paper was not in his handwriting nor anything was copied from the said paper in the answer book. A perusal of the answer book and the alleged paper) reveals that though the explanation of the petitioner that it was recovered from the ground was not correct as he admitted that the paper was recovered from inside the desk, however, the explanation of the petitioner that the script in the alleged paper was in different handwriting and nothing was copied from the alleged paper by the petitioner are correct. The action against the petitioner is wholly based on presumption contained in the definition 1.2 (B) of Chapter 28 of the Ordinance. In view of the reply given by the petitioner that the paper was not in his handwriting and the admitted position that nothing was copied from it in the answer book, it was necessary for the Unfair Means Committee to record satisfaction that the paper belonged to the petitioner and it was used by him. The relevant Ordinance 1.6 reads as under:- " 1.6 The Committee referred to in Ordinance 1.4 shall award the following punishment after placing on record that it has examined all the documents referred to in Ordinance 1.5 and that it has satisfied itself regarding the facts of the matter." The order of the Unfair Means Committee, however, does not contain any such satisfaction regarding the vital aspects of the case. The order is written on a printed form on which the columns have been filled in a mechanical manner. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Unfair Means Committee ought to have recorded a clear finding that the paper belonged to the petitioner and it was intended to be used by him. In the absence of such finding the petitioner could not be punished and be deprived of the benefit of the examination. He was given a second copy and he answered all the questions at his own.;