S.K.Singh, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Suneel Rai, learned Advocate in support of the writ petition and Sri A.B.L. Gaur, learned Senior Advocate in opposition thereof, who appeared on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) By means of this writ petition challenge is to the order dated 3.8.2001 passed by the respondent No. 2 by which petitioner's examination of B.Com. IIIrd Year of the year 2001 was cancelled and petitioner was further debarred from appearing in the next examination of the year 2002.
(3.) Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner appeared in B.Com IIIrd Year examination with the Roll No. 26045 and on 15.3.2001 on completion of the examination when time was over he was to deposit his answer sheet along with other students and at that time there was short conversation of petitioner with some other students on account of which Sri A.K. Srivastava, the Invigilator intervened and he became annoyed on the feeling of fault on the part of the petitioner and he created some problem in deposit of the answer sheet upon which petitioner was compelled to write on a plain sheet that he has committed a mistake and he be pardoned and it is thereafter answer sheet was accepted. Submission is that petitioner being innocent gave in writing about that excuse on a sheet of paper by way of apology. It is claimed that when the result was declared on 20.7.2001 and petitioner's result was not there he approached the concerned authorities then it disclosed that on account of using unfair means his result has been detained. After meeting the authorities on several occasions a letter dated 3.8.2001 was served on the petitioner by which he was informed that his result of B.Com IIIrd Year Examination has been cancelled and he has been debarred from appearing in the subsequent examination of the year 2002. Submission is that before passing the impugned order petitioner was not served with any notice and no explanation was called from him. It is further submitted that no enquiry was conducted and impugned action has been taken in an arbitrary and whimsical manner. The averment about lack of opportunity has been made in paragraphs 7, 8 and 10 of the writ petition. The explanation in respect to endorsement on a sheet of paper, as noted above, has been given in paragraph 3 and 4 of the writ petition. Submission is that it is on account of annoyance of the invigilator, as detailed in the writ petition, petitioner has been made suffer and he has been punished without any opportunity in the matter. In support of the submission that action in violation of Principle of Natural Justice is to be quashed, reliance has been placed on the decision given by this court in case of Jayanti Prasad Dwivedi v. University of Allahabad and Ors. reported in (2000)3 U.P.L.B.E.C., 2760.;