- (1.) THIS special appeal, under the Rules of the Court, is preferred against the judgment dated 3-10-2006 of the Hon'ble Single Judge allowing the petitioner-respondent's Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28603 of 2006.
(2.) HEARD Shri A. B. L. Gaur, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri Amitabh Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-respondent and also perused the judgment under appeal. It appears that the petitioner-respondent was caught while appearing in LL. B. 1st year examination of 2006 of first semester on the ground that unauthorised material has been found from his possession. The alleged unauthorised material, which was recovered from his possession is some number written on the admit card. From a perusal of relevant record, produced for the perusal of the Court, it is apparent that some number, may be telephone number, is written at the top of back page of admit card. Shri A. B. L. Gaur vehemently contended that the admit card does not permit any writing by the candidate except in the columns meant therein for filling his names etc. during examination and the action taken by the University is in accordance with the provisions contained under Chapter XXVII of the Ordinances on the Use of Unfairmeans and Causing Disturbances in Examination (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance ). He further argued that the cost has been directed to be paid by the Controller of Examination although as per Ordinance he cannot be held responsible. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as Division Bench of this Court in Central Board of Secondary Education v. Vineeta Mahajan (Ms) & Anr. , (1994) 1 SCC 6, Chairman, J & K State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik & Ors. , (2003) 3 SCC 59 and Special Appeal No. 1017 of 2006, The Vice Chancellor, C. S. M. U. Kanpur & Ors. v. Abhay Kumar Tripathi & Ors. , decided on 18-9- 2006.
(3.) HAVING considered the aforesaid submissions we are of the view that the judgment under appeal warrants no interference. A candidate found using or attempting abating or instigating to use the unfair means in the examination of University of Allahabad is liable to punishment in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter XXVIII of the Ordinances. However, the term unfair means has been defined in Clause 1. 2 (A) as under: (A) Unfairmeans.- A candidate shall be deemed to have used "unfairmeans" if the candidate transcribed any part or the whole of the unauthorized material or if he intimidates or threatens or manhandles or uses violence against any invigilator or person on duty in the examination or if he leaves the examination hall without surrendering his examination script to an invigilator or if he is found communicating with other examinees or any one else inside or outside the examination hall. " In the case in hand the case of the University is that the petitioner-respondent was guilty of unfair means since unauthorized material was found in his possession. The term unauthorized material is also defined under Clause 1. 2 (C) as under: " (C) Unauthorised Material.- "unauthorised material" shall mean any material whatsoever, related to the subject of the examination, printed, typed, written or otherwise, on paper, cloth, wood or material in any language - in the form. ";