- (1.) S. N. Srivastava, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel as well as perused the materials available on record.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner urged that the finding of Unfair Means Committee to the effect that answers of petitioner's Answer-sheet were copied and are similar to the Answers of a student having Role No. 815657 is perverse and is vitiated in law and as such impugned order is liable to be quashed, it is clear from Answersheets produced before the Court that the mistakes occurred in the answers of the student of Role No. 815657 were not found in the answers of the petitioner and thus it could not be said that the petitioner Indulged in copying to the answersheet of the student of Role No. 815657. Learned Standing Counsel produced relevant answer-sheets before this Court. Considered arguments of learned Counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the materials on record.
(3.) THE allegation against the petitioner (Role Number 815692) in the charge-sheet was that his answers in the answer-sheets of Intermediate Examination were found to have been copied from the answer- sheet of the student whose Role Number was 815657. On the basis of these charges petitioner's result of Intermediate Examination was with-held, but on the basis of Provisional Marksheet petitioner continued his further studies in B. A-I. Subsequently petitioner's result of Intermediate Examination was cancelled. There are charges against the petitioner that his answers in the Answer-sheet are similar to the answers scribed in the answersheets of a student of Role No. 815657, but allegations against the petitioner are not that he copied the answers from some common source. The charges of using unfair means against the petitioner would have been proved in case the mistakes in his answers would have been similar to that of answers in the Answer-sheet of student of Role No. 815657, but in the present case some mistakes found in the answers of student of Role No. 815657 have not been found in the answers of petitioner and, therefore, it may be safely considered and presumed that the charge of copying against petitioner from the answer-sheet of student of Role 815657 could not be established.;