- (1.) The petitioner, who had appeared at the B.A. L.L.B. third semester examination, has filed this petition for quashing the order dated 16th August, 2013 passed by the respondent-Bundelkhand University, Jhansi by which the third semester examination result of the petitioner has been cancelled and he has been debarred from appearing in the next semester examination. On 27th September, 2013, time was given to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University to produce the records. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University has produced the records. It is seen from the records that on 21st January, 2013 when the petitioner was appearing in the Political Science third paper, a handwritten photo-stat copy was found in his possession by the Flying Squad and so a show-cause notice dated 2nd July, 2013 was issued to the petitioner to which he submitted a detailed reply stating that the photo-stat copy did not belong to him and nor was it in his handwriting. The records also show that the examiner who examined the unauthorised material and the answer book had reported that the unauthorised material did not only relate to the question paper but the petitioner had also utilised it in his answers. It is in view of the aforesaid report that the Examinations Committee constituted to deal with and decide cases relating to use of unfair means decided to cancel the third semester examination result of the petitioner and also debarred him from appearing in the next semester examination.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the decision taken by the Examinations Committee deserves to be set aside as the unauthorised material was not recovered from the possession of the petitioner and nor is it in his handwriting.
(3.) In order to examine the connection advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner reference needs to be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. Allahabad and another v. Bagleshwar Prasad and another, 1966 AIR(SC) 875 This was the case where the candidate was charged with use of unfair means as he had given wrong answers in precisely the same form as the answers that had been given by another candidate. The High Court found that the conclusion of the Enquiry Committee that the respondent had copied either from the answer book of another candidate or from another source was not supported by any evidence. The Supreme Court, however, reversed the decision of the High Court holding that the question before the Enquiry Committee had to be decided in the light of the nature of the incorrect answers and that is what the Enquiry Committee had done. It was also observed: In dealing with petitions of this type, it is necessary to bear in mind that educational institutions like the Universities or appellant No. 1 set up Enquiry Committees to deal with the problem posed by the adoption of unfair means by candidates, and normally it is within the jurisdiction of such domestic Tribunals to decide all relevant questions in the light of the evidence adduced before them. In the matter of the adoption of unfair means, direct evidence may sometimes be available, but cases may arise where direct evidence is not available and the question will have to be considered in the light of probabilities and circumstantial evidence. This problem which educational institutions have to face from time to time is a serious problem and unless there is justification to do so, Courts should be slow to interfere with the decisions of domestic Tribunals appointed by educational bodies like the Universities. In dealing with the validity of the impugned orders passed by Universities under Art. 226, the High Court is not sitting in appeal over the decision in question; its jurisdiction is limited and though it is true that if the impugned order is not supported by any evidence at all, the High Court would be justified to quash that order. But the conclusion that the impugned order is not supported by any evidence must be reached after considering the question as to whether probabilities and circumstantial evidence do not justify the said conclusion. Enquiries held by domestic Tribunals in such cases must, no doubt, be fair and students against whom charges are framed must be given adequate opportunities to defend themselves, and in holding such enquiries, the Tribunals must scrupulously follow rules of natural justice; but it would, we think, not be reasonable to import into these enquiries all considerations which govern criminal trials in ordinary Courts of law.;