- (1.) THE petitioner has challenged the appointment of the Enquiry Committee headed by Dr. S. K. Saraf and has prayed that the said committee should be restrained from going into the matter of use of unfair means by the petitioner in the spring semester of B. E. II Year (Electrical) of 1986 and further relief, as may be warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted.
(2.) IT is useful to detail out the facts relevant for the purposes of decision of this writ petition. The petitioner at the relevant time was a student of B. E. (Elec.) III Year of the University of Roorkee. Her case is that she has a brilliant academic record. She is said to have passed I Year examination and the Autumn Semester examination of II Year. After the declaration of the result of B. E. (Elec.) II Year Spring Semester some students of B. E. (Elec.) III Year out of heart burning and jealousy are said to have submitted a representation to the Head of the Department of Electrical Engineering alleging therein gross irregularities and manipulations in the examination and the result of the petitioner in the Spring Semester of 1985-86. These students are said to have been promoted by some persons, opposed to the petitioner's father, who was Head of the Department of W. R. D. T. C. of the University. On the said complaint the Vice-Chancellor is said to have appointed an Enquiry Committee headed by Dr. K. G. Ranga Raju on 26-8-1986. This Committee had Dr. N. K. Nanda and Dr. R. Sinhasan as its members. This Committee was asked to examine specifically the question of any irregularity in evaluating the performance of the petitioner. The Committee was to fix responsibility for such irregularity and also suggest remedial action, if any. The Committee was requested to make suggestions for improvement to avoid similar occurrence. Copy of the order by which this Committee was appointed is Annexure 2 to the writ petition. The petitioner is said to have apprised the said Committee about her merit in the Engineering Course. A copy of that representation is also on the file as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. Before the Ranga Raju Committee the petitioner is said to have appeared on 4th and 8th September, 1986. The members of the Committee asked the petitioner to admit her guilt. The students, who had made the complaint, participated in the proceedings before the Committee and in their presence the petitioner was asked to make confession of her guilt. The petitioner turned down the suggestion. The said Committee submitted its report to the Vice-Chancellor. The petitioner was supplied only with extract of the report. The proceedings before the Ranga Raju Committee are said to be farce and mockery of principles of natural justice and fair play. The Vice-Chancellor is said to have appointed another committee on 16-9-1986, which was headed by Dr. A. R. Chandrasekaran. Copy of the order constituting this Committee is Annexure 4 to the writ petition. It had three more professors as its members. The following directions were given to the Committee: "on receiving a complaint from a number of students of B. E. III Year Electrical, the Vice-Chancellor had appointed a Committee consisting of Prof. K. G. Ranga Raju, Dr. N. K. Nanda and Dr. R. Sinhasan to enquire into the allegations and suggest if adequate basis existed for further action. Extracts from the report of the Committee insofar as they relate to the conduct of the student are being sent to the members in separate sealed covers. The present Committee is requested to function as an unfairmeans Committee and give its recommendation after giving due opportunity to the student to present her case in writing and orally, if she so wishes. " The constitution of this Committee is said to be in exercise of the powers of the Vice-Chancellor under Regulation 57. 21. 5 of the University Regulations. The said Committee appears to have addressed a communication to the petitioner, copy whereof is Annexure 5 to the writ petition. It is mentioned in the said communication that the term of the reference was enlarged. The Ranga Raju Committee is said to have reported against the petitioner with regard to the following: (a) Getting to know the contents of all the question papers of B. E. (Elc.) II Year at the Spring Semester Examination of 1985-86 to gain advantage over the other students of her class in this examination; (b) making additions in her answer-book in the paper EEN 202 after the examination and outside the examination hall to her advantage.
(3.) AN opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend herself against the above recommendations of the Enquiry Committee before the unfair-means Committee. She was given an option to present her case in writing or orally and the meeting in this connection was to be held at 4 p. m. on 24-9-1986. The petitioner is said to have challenged the constitution of this Committee. She demanded the material on which the Committee was constituted and also the Ranga Raju Committee's report by a letter, copy whereof is Annexure 6 to the writ petition. It is stated that the Students Association of the University is said to have launched a campaign pressurising the authorities of the University to enlarge the scope of the Chandrasekaran Committee. They campaigned for the change of the Chandrasekaran Committee. The Vice-Chancellor is said to have been acting under coercion and pressure. The Chandrasekaran Committee was disbanded and was replaced under the pressure of the students. The students are said to have pressed for appointment of another committee of which the members of their choice should be co-opted as members. The Vice-Chancellor is said to have succumbed to the pressure of the students. On October 1, 1986 another committee headed by Prof. S. K. Saraf was constituted. The members of this Committee were taken from the list given by the students in terms of some accord reached between the students and the Vice-Chancellor. The constitution of this Committee is reflected by Annexure 7 to the writ petition. The petitioner is said to have replied to the notice issued to her by the Chandrasekaran Committee. Her stand was that it was not a case of use of unfair means in the examination. Therefore, the validity or correctness of the order appointing the second committee, which was termed as unfair means Committee was challenged in the letter by the petitioner.;