- (1.) R. A. Sharma, J. Petitioner No. 1 is the Principal and petitioner No. 2 is the Professor and Head of Department of Pharmacology of Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the college) which is a constituent College of the University of Allahabad. The Examination Committee, which is a statutory authority under U. P. State Universities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has passed an order debarring both the petitioners from conducting any examination of Medical College for a period of two years. Being aggrieved by it petitioners have filed this writ petition.
(2.) UNIVERSITY has filed counter -af fidavit. Dr. A. K. Kapoor, who has been impleaded as respondent No. 5 to the writ petition, has also filed counter-affidavit. The petitioners have filed rejoinder-af fidavit in reply thereto. We have heard Sri S. P. Gupta and Sri A. P. Sahi for the petitioners, Sri Ashok Bhushan learned counsel for the UNIVERSITY, Sri S. C. Budhwar and Sri Sudhir Agarwal, learned counsel for Dr. A. K. Kapoor. In the counter-affidavits serious allegations have been made against the petitioner No. 1, one of which relates to conduct of the examination with the help of unauthorised teachers. Allegations have also been made against the petitioner No. 2 in the said counter-affidavits. Petitioners have also raised allegations against the University authorities. It is not necessary to go into the questions and con- troversities raised by the parties in the instant case, because we are sending this matter back to the respondents to decide it afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. From pleadings of the parties and documents annexed thereto it is quite ap parent that the respondents have passed the impugned order in violation of prin ciples of natural justice. Annexures-7, 8 and 9 to the writ petition on which reliance has been placed on behalf of the respon dents do not satisfy the requirements of principles of natural justice. Annexure-7 is the letter dated 16-11-1995 written by the Controller of Examination asking the petitioner No. 1 to explain as to how Dr. K. U. Ansari was appointed as an Ex aminer by the Board of studies. Annexure-8 is the letter dated November 24, 1995 written by petitioner No. 1 to the Control ler of Examination in reply to the aforesaid letter. Annexure-9 is another letter dated 19-2-1996 of Controller of Ex amination asking the petitioner 'no. 1 to let him know about clarification, if any, received by him from Medical Council of India regarding the practical and viva voce examination of M. B. B. S. Part II (Phar macology ). By none of the letters petitioners have been asked to show cause as to why they should not be debarred from conducting the examination. In S. L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan and others, AIR 1981 SC136, the Supreme Court has laid down the there can be onipliahce of natural justice only if opportunity to represent is given in view of proposed action. Relevant extract from the decision of Supreme Court is reproduced below: "in our view, the requirements of natural justice are met only if opportunity is given in view of proposed action. The demands of natural justice are not met even if the very per son proceeded against has furnished the opinion on which the action is based, if it is furnished in a casual way or for some other purpose. "
(3.) THE order debarring a person from conducting the examinations has serious consequences and repercussion for him. It also affects his reputation. Such an order cannot be passed without giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the person who will be affected by it. In Mis. Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and another, AIR 1975 SC 266, the Supreme Court quashed the order black listing the trader without giving any notice to him. Same principle was reiterated in Raghunath Thakur v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1989 SC 620. In the instant case though the impugned order is not the order of black listing, but it is as good as an order of black listing. Both types of orders have the same effect i. e. the person affected thereby is precluded from carrying on any trade, or activity. THErefore, the principles laid down by Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases will be applicable to the instant case also. It is not disputed that the petitioners were not given any notice or opportunity of being heard before the impugned order was passed. This writ petition is allowed. The impugned order so far as it debars the petitioners from conducting the examina tions in the Medical College for two years, is quashed. Rest of the order remains in tact. It will, however, be open to the University authorities to pass appropriate order afresh, in accordance with law. Petition allowed. .;