- (1.) DEVI Prasad Singh, J. Feeling aggrieved with the cancellation of result on account of alleged use of unfair means by respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case is that the petitioner is a regular student of Gayatri Vidyapeeth Post Graduate College Risia Bahraich of B. Com. 1st year course. While appearing in B. Com. 1st year examination of the subject Business Economics the petitioner was caught by Flying Squad. He was found with certain incriminating materials. It has been endorsed by the members of Flying Squad that petitioner had misbehaved with the member of Flying Squad and also abused them. On the report of Flying Squad, the matter was considered by the Unfair Means Committee on 12-7-2005. The Unfair Means Committee had recommended for cancellation of result of B. Com. 1st year course as well as depriving the petitioner to appear in 2006 examination. Submission of the petitioner's Counsel is that a notice dated 3-6-2005 was received by the petitioner on 26-7-2005 but the impugned order has been passed on 12-7-2005. According to the petitioner Counsel the impugned order has been passed without prior service of notice which is not permissible under law and is violative of principles of natural justice. On the other hand, Sri Manik Sinha submits that notice was dispatched on 3-6-2005 and admittedly the punishment order was passed on 12-7-2005 in pursuance to order passed by the Controller of Examiner who is present in person alongwith record. From the copy of the subject in question namely, Business Economics it appears that the petitioner has received 26 marks. However, on account of the cancellation of examination in pursuance the impugned order, the petitioner's result of 2005 has been cancelled. The Controller of Examination had produced before this Court, a register containing the report Unfair Means Committee which has not been properly numbered and paged are detached from original binding and is in very bad shape. However, the petitioner's name found place at serial No. 112 of the said register and adjacent to his name it has been marked with a rubber seal, " (2005 Hejer#ee efvejmle, 2006 " ). Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned order has been passed by the Unfair Means Committee after considering the report of Flying Squad as well as Head Examiner. However, the report is neither speaking one nor disclose the grounds for cancellation of examination.
(3.) IT is settled law that every order should stands on its own leg vide Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, 1978 (1) SCC 405. The manner and method adopted by respondent or its unfair means committee while deciding the controversy relating to use of unfair means is highly arbitrary. IT appears that in a mechanical manner, adjacent to the name of each and every student who were alleged to involved in unfair means a finding has been recorded with the use of rubber seal. A perusal of register produced before this Court indicates that the Unfair Means Committee had without applying its minds had decided the fate of young students by putting a rubber seal adjacent to their name disclosing the fact that the result have been cancelled or they have been debarred to appear in the future examination. The manner in which the unfair means committee of the respondents university had acted and decided the controversy relating to the use of unfair means is not only highly arbitrary but it is deplorable. The carriers of hundreds of students who were alleged to involve in use of unfair means have been dealt with mechanically by use of rubber seal, which discloses the final outcome of the inquiry. The unfair means committee had made the mockery of system by using rubber seal instead of deciding the individual cases of the students on merit. It was incumbent upon the Unfair Means Committee to consider each and every case on merit on the basis of allegations on record keeping in view the reply given by a charged student but it has not been done. The Apex Court right from A. K. Kraipak and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. , AIR 1970 SC 150, followed by Menka Gandhi v. Union of India and Anr. , 1978 (1) SCC 248, and in plenty of cases had consistently ruled that wherever the civil rights of a person is involved, the authorities while adjudicating a dispute must apply mind to the controversy involved therein after considering the reply submitted by person concerned. It is horrible to think that respondent university or its committee had tried to decide the fate of students who were involved in the alleged use of unfair means with the aid of rubber stamps in a register containing the names of students in a seriatim.;