S.N.Srivastava - (1.) -Impugned herein is the order dated 29.12.2004 by which the petitioner's LL.B. 1st year examination 2004 has been cancelled on the ground that he was caught using unfair means while giving examination of V paper of LL.B 1st year.
(2.) A brief resume of necessary facts is that on 19.4.2004, while the petitioner was writing answers of VI paper of LL.B. 1st year 2004, he was caught by the Flying Squad using unfair means in the examination. He was served with a notice on 16.9.2004 in which he was charged with adoption of unfair means. The notice also alluded that the petitioner confessed before the invigilator to using unfair means but refused to give any statement in writing on the spot and he also declined to accept the 'B' copy. It was also alleged in the notice that the petitioner gulped down the crib-notes and ultimately he was required to submit his written explanation by 16.9.2004. In response to the said notice, the petitioner submitted his reply dated 16.9.2004 addressed to Vice Chancellor, Ruhelkhand University Bareilly which was one of denial stating that he never refused to give his statement nor he refused to accept the B answer-sheet ; that no unauthorized material was recovered from his possession; that he neither destroyed nor gulped down any unauthorized material ; that he never threatened any one nor used any abusive language ; that the entire episode appears to be an upshot of misunderstanding of invigilators/examination Supdt. Ultimately, while giving details of his very good academic career, the petitioner described the allegations as unfounded and prayed for declaring the withheld result. On 29.12.2004, the petitioner was intimated by means of office memorandum/order about cancellation of result of all the candidates including petitioner who were found guilty of adoption of unfair means. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel appearing for the University. I have also heard learned counsel appearing for opposite party No. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that there was nothing on record to bear out that the petitioner used unfair means in the examination. He also argued that the reply submitted by the petitioner was not considered ; and that the decision of Unfair Means Committee suffers from error of law and is liable to be quashed. Per contra, learned counsel for the University contended that impugned order was based on recommendation of Examination Superintendent, Ruhelkhand University; that the petitioner gulped down the unauthorized materials and also misbehaved with the Flying Squad. Ultimately, the learned counsel for the University tried to prop up the impugned order submitting that it was based on evidence and was passed in accordance with the relevant Rules.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the University has annexed charge-sheet as Annexure-C.A. 1, reply of the petitioner as Annexure-2, the proforma containing proceeding conducted in the matter of unfair means as Annexure-3 and the relevant rule of the University as Annexure-4, Clause 3 of Annexure-C.A. 3 embodies the comment at page 1 to the effect that the petitioner swallowed the material and misbehaved with flying squad. It would further appear from a perusal of column meant for containing statement of the candidate that the petitioner emphatically denied that there was any unfair means with him or at his desk. He also denied that he had brought with him any unfair means. He also denied that he made use of unfair means. Below this questionnaire the petitioner has subscribed his signature. In the column at page 2, there is a further comment dated 19.4.2004 recorded at 9 a.m. that the petitioner was caught by flying squad and he swallowed material and misbehaved with flying squad. This column bears signatures allegedly of the two invigilators. It would also appear that the same day, the Examination Supdt. forwarded the matter at 9 a.m. At page 3, is contained the examiner's report in which examiner has indicated that no unfair means material has been attached. Ultimately, the examiner reported that no report is possible as unfair means material has been swallowed and as such no material is attached. This report also bears the date 19.7.2004. In column No. 6, two liner order is stamped by which the examination 2004 of the petitioner was cancelled and he was further debarred from appearing in the examination 2005. In this connection, norms prescribed by the University for deciding the cases of unfair-means may be noticed. Clause 5 of the Norms relied upon by the counsel for the University is quoted below : "5. In case where material/handwritten/printed or of any type was found in possession of the candidate but the centre reports that the material was swallowed or destroyed by the candidate the examination of the year be cancelled and he be further debarred from appearing at any examination of University for one following year." Clause 15 of the norms adopted by the University postulates that if required, the candidate may be asked to appear before the committee and explain the situation.;