- (1.) IN all these petitions common questions of law and fact are involved. Notices of these petitions were served upon the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and they were required to file counter- affidavits.
(2.) COUNTER-affidavit has been filed only in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14007 of 1997, Shailendra Kumar Srivastava v. Deputy Registrar (Examinations) University of Allahabad and others. In other petitions learned counsel for the University does not propose to file the counter-affidavits as the questions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are all questions of law and can be decided without counter- affidavits. Therefore, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and as desired by them, these petitions are disposed of finally by this common judgment. By means of these petitions petitioners who are the students of Allahabad University challenge the validity of the orders passed by the respondents, in some cases cancelling the results of their examinations for the year 1996 and in other cancelling the results of the examinations of 1996 and also debarring them from appearing in corresponding (and any other) subsequent examinations of 1997. Prayers for directions in the nature of mandamus commending the respondents to declare the results of the examinations in question and to permit the petitioners to appear in their respective examinations for the year 1997 have also been made. The basic facts in all the aforesaid petitions are that the petitioners appeared in the examinations of various classes/courses conducted by the Allahabad University in the year 1996. In the said examinations petitioners are alleged to have used unfair means. Some of the examinees were served notices in the examination hall itself and others were served notices after statutory period, calling upon them to show cause as to why the punishment to cancellation of the examination and debarment from appearing in the subsequent examination of the year 1997 be not awarded to them. Similarly, some of the petitioners hace submitted their replies/explanations in the examination hall itself, and others subsequently denving the charges levelled against them.
(3.) IT may be noted that the show cause notices have been issued to the petitioners on the printed forms, indicating therein the charges levelled against them. Petitioners on receipt of said notices submitted theird explanations denying the charges levelled against them. Thereafter, similar orders, on printed forms have been communicated to the petitioners, one of which is reproduced below:- "university OF ALLAHABAd REGISTEREd Senate House Allahabad Dated: 4-3-97 Suresh Chandra Pandey R. No. 74726 I am directed to inform you that in accordance with the provisions contained in the Ordinances on the use of unfair means and of causing disturbances in Examination, you have been awarded following punishment for attempt/using of unfair means at the B. A. II Examination of 1996. "cancellation of your result of B. A. II Examination of 1996 and also debarment from corresponding (and any other) subsequent examination of 1997. Your faithfully, Sd/- DEPUTY REGISTRAR (EXAM.)" 5a. On receipt of the aforesaid orders, the petitioners have approached this Court and filed the above noted writ petitions. In almost all the writ petitions it has been asserted by the petitioners that the procedure prescribed under the law for awarding the punishment was not followed by the respondents, inasmuch, as the notices were not served upon some of the petitioners in the examination hall, or even within seven days thereafter of the date of incident, and were served, in some cases, long thereafter. It has been asserted that petitioners have submitted their explanations, but their explanations have not been considered and the punishments have been awarded to the petitioners wholly arbitrarily and that the orders of punishment passed against the petitioners do not contain reasons. It has also been alleged in some cases the charge was different from the one which is alleged to have been found by the examiner and that no case for debarment from subsequent examination was at all made out. Therefore, the impugned orders were liable to be quashed.;