SURENDRA KUMAR MEHROTRA Vs. SECRETARY BOARD OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (FROM: LUCKNOW)
SURENDRA KUMAR MEHROTRA
SECRETARY BOARD OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION
Click here to view full judgement.
G.D. Sahgal, J. -
(1.)THOUGH the facts of the cases arising out of these three writ petitions are somewhat different one from the other yet as they raise some common questions of law they have been heard together and will be disposed of by a common judgment. Surendra Kumar Mehrotra is the petitioner in writ petition No. 461 of 1964. The opposite-parties are the Secretary, Board of Technical Education, the Principal, Hewett Polytechnic, Mahanagar, and the Examination Committee of the Board of Technical Education, U. P. The Opposite parties in the other two writ petitions are also the same but while the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 162 of 1964 is Surendra Pal Singh, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 463 of 1964 is Pramod Swamp Tandon.
(2.)ALL the petitioners appeared at the II year examination of Electrical Engineering of the Board of Technical Education in 1964. Their Examination centre was Government Polytechnic at Latouche Road, Lucknow. On the 30th of April, 1964 the examination of Engineering Drawing was scheduled to be held. There was another centre also at the Hewett Polytechnic but the petitioners appeared at the Government Polytechnic at Latouche Road. There was an uproar at the question paper set for Engineering Drawing as it was considered to be very stiff and some of the examinees left the examination hall and prevented other students also from appearing at the examination centre at Latouche Road. Similar thing happened at the Hewett Polytechnic at Mahanagar also on the same day and while about 250 students walked out of the examination hall at Latouche Road, about 150 walked out of the examination hall at the Hewett Polytechnic at Mahanagar. The three petitioners were charge- sheeted in connection with those disturbances and a charge-sheet was served on each of them by the Secretary of the Examination Committee who also happens to be the Secretary of Board of Technical Education, U. P. He is opposite party No. 1.
The charge against Surendra Kumar Mehrotra (W. P. No. 461 of 1964), among others, was that along with other examinees he was responsible for the walk out of the examinees at his centre, he was the first to open the door of the examination hall and run out and at the Hewett Polytechnic Centre he took a leading part in disturbing the examination by entering into the rooms, tearing drawing sheets and committing other acts of indiscipline.
The charge against Surendra Pal Singh was that he pushed aside one of the invigilators at the examination hall and forced his way out and led the trouble and at the Hewett Polytechnic Centre also he was one of the intruders who instigated the examinees to walkout and tear drawing sheets taking a leading part in the disturbance.
(3.)PRAMOD Swamp Tandon was charged, among other things, for being responsible for the walk out of the examinees at his centre, for threatening the helper invigilator at Government Polytechnic Centre with open knife and abusing him and for taking a leading part in causing disturbance to the examination and indulging in indiscipline and destructive activities At the Hewett Polytechnic Centre. It was also stated as against him that he would have fatally wounded the helper invigilator had he not run away for life.
All the three gave a reply to the charge-sheet denying the charges made against them. Surendra Kumar Mehrotra claimed that there was no reference given in the charge-sheet as to who was the complainant and what was the evidence led thereto for arriving at the charges. He claimed that the charges were in the circumstances ultra vires, ineffectual and incapable of fuller comments. The other two contented themselves by denying the charges made against them. They did not raise the question as to who was the complainant and what was the nature of the evidence against them. As the reply of Surendra Kumar Mehrotra involved the disclosure of the evidence against him, the Secretary pointed out that the committee, in view of the secrecy of the conduct of examination and propriety thereof in this behalf and in the interest of discipline, could at the most inform him that there was definite reliable and overwhelming evidence against him on the following points: "1. That you and a few others stood up creating disturbance and inciting others and that you opened the door of the Drawing Hall and ran out. 2. That you took a leading part in disturbing the examination at Hewett Polytechnic Centre" (Vide annexure III). He was given further opportunity to clarify the position vis-a-vis the charges in this reply. He had, however, been told in the very beginning that the procedure adopted by the Committee was entirely summary, the guiding principle being that natural justice was ensured. He was also told that the evidence referred to in the reply would be duly weighed and the charges decided in the light of the points raised in the explanation.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.