R.M. Sahai, K.P. Singh, JJ. - (1.) Father of petitioner, on teaching Staff of the Agra University, raised a storm against holding of viva voce test of M.A. Final (Psychology) first by sending a letter to the Vice Counsellor against one of the internal examiner and alleging collusion between him and one another lecturer whose daughter was also a student and was first divisioner like petitioner. Apprehension was expressed that she was manipulating to secure first position for her daughter. Not satisfied with this he sent a lawyer who appears to have gone to the University on next day, the day on which viva voce test was to be held, along with some others and Served a notice on the internal examiner. Various allegations of collusion and manipulations were made. Apprehension of favour under obligating of friendship between internal examiner and the other teacher was express It appears, presence of lawyer along with four persons resulted in what is described in tho report of internal examiner sent on same day to the Vice Chancellor in creating tension and insecurity of examiner and examinees, therefore, the examination was cancelled. On same day Head of the Department called for comment from the external examiner on the notice served on behalf of petitioner. But since the internal and external examiner had left the college after cancelling examination the letter did not appear to have been served on him After a week the petitioner's father sent uniquer letter to to the vice Chancellor reiterating what had been said earlier. It was further added that after cancellation of examination the examines did not deposit the answer books of practical examinations on which viva voce was to be held either with the Principal or Registrar. And it was obtained through special messenger from residence of internal examiner at about mid night Therefore they had no Sanctity and practical examinations may be re - held and any two other teachers may be appointed to hold the test. After more than a month the Registrar notified that since viva voce could not be held earlier it shall now be held on 21st April at 11-00 A.M. in the Institute of Social Sciences. At this stage petitioner rushed to this Court. Since members of (sic) were on strike her father was heard at residence by a bench of which one of us (R.M. Sahai, J) was a member. The Bench permitted petitioner to serve opposite parties who were directed to file counter affidavit till 12th May, 1986 explaining the circumstances in which viva voce examination was being held on practical ten field earlier when the same had been cancelled by internal examiners. On 12th May head of the department appeared and filed counter affidavit in which he denied allegations of collusion between internal examiner and the other teacher. He produced photostat copies of certain documents. They had not been filed with counter affidavit. Some of them had been noted in the order dated 12th May. Since it was not clear if any inquiry had been held in the matter by the Vice Chancellor and the University had not put in appearance nor was it clear in what circumstances viva voce was going to be held on practicals held earlier it was directed that Vice Chancellor, it he had not been appraised on all this, may examine by holding an inquiry if it had not already been held if practical examination held earlier could form basis for viva voce test. On 15th May counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the University. According to it the Vico Chancellor was apprised of what happened on 10th March He after looking into representations of twenty four students against re-examination, complaint of Smt. Nandita Verma, letter of the internal examiners cancelling the examination, meeting with other teachers of department, principal of the College and internal examiners and being Satisfied that answer books were unmarked referred the matter to the Examination Committee on i3th March who on 14th March resolved that viva voce should be held by teachers of other colleges on a different venue on basis of practical examination held earlier. Allegations of collusion, manipulation, illegality etc. were denied.
(2.) The Vice Chancellor, the Examination Committee and even head of department who has submitted a report were of the view that internal examiners could not have cancelled the examination Apart from it the Vice Chancellor having found that answer books were unmarked no prejudice is caused to petitioner. Further to ensure fairness specially in unfortunate circumstances the Examination Committee not holy changed the venue but entrusted it to external examiners. The apprehension of petitioner therefore appears to be unfounded. Insistence for re-examination in the Circumstances appears to be wholly unjustified. No collusion or manipulation could be established.
(3.) Learned counsel vehemently urged that despite the order passed by this court on 12-5-1986, the Vice Chancellor did not hold any enquiry. He urged that counter - affidavit was filed by University on 15th May, 1986 when the University was not aware of the directions issued by this Court. According to learned counsel in these circumstances the courier affidavit should be ignored and the Vice Chancellor should be directed to hold a fresh enquiry. The submission is devoid of any merit. the Bench had directed the Vico Chancellor to hold an enquiry on 12th May, 1986 only if no enquiry had been held but as is clear from the counter affidavit the Vice Chan cell in had gone into the matter, examined various aspects and referred the matter to tin Examination Committee which under the Statute is the body constituted to deal with cancellation of examination etc. In the circumstances it was not necessary for the Vice-Chancellor to hold any fresh inquiry. Further the Barren petition Committee having gone into the matter and examined the material on record and come to conclusion that the re-examination is not necessary. There appears no justification to allow the prayer of the petitioner. The agreement of learned counsel for petitioner that viva voce examination should have been held within two days of the practical examination and as there was delay of more than a month the practical examination should be held again Joes not impress us. It is true that there is a provision in the Statute that viva voce examination Should be held normally within two days of the practical examination but if there is unusual delay, as it was in this case, and the examination was not held within two days then it cannot result into vitiation of the examination nor it can call for any direction to hold any examination. As pointed on earlier the Vice-Chancellor found that copies of the practical examination were not marked. The apprehension of the petitioner, therefore, that fairness may not be observed in her favour stands dispelled.;