K.N.Seth and R.S.Singh, JJ. - (1.) THE Petitioner appeared in 1975 at the M.A. (final; Examination in Ancient History conducted by the University of Gorakhpur. His result was withheld. By a letter dated 23rd August, wrongly shown as 23rd October, 1976 he was informed that the Sub -Committee appointed by the Exams. Committee under its resolution No. 3 dated 22nd March, 1976 had decided that the Petitioner had tampered with his answer book of paper II, Group (F) of M.A. (final). He was directed to show cause why his examination in papers I and II, Group (F) be not cancelled. According to the Petitioner some report was submitted by Sri S.N. Chaturvedi, Reader in the Ancient History of Gorakhpur University, to the Vice Chancellor against the Petitioner and 14 other students of M.A. (final) in Ancient History alleging use of unfair means by them. The allegation against the Petitioner was to the effect that one of the answer books of the Petitioner had four additional punching -holes which was an uncommon feature. The Petitioner submitted his explanation but as no decision was taken in the matter he filed a writ petition (No. 3206 of 1977) in this Hon'ble Court for a direction to the University to decide the matter at an early date. The petition was allowed by a Bench of this Court. A writ in the nature of mandamus was issued directing the University to render its decision in regard to the malpractice alleged to have been committed by the Petitioner and in case he is held not guilty, to declare his results on or before 30 -4 -1978.
(2.) THE Deputy Registrar Exami -(sic), which was constituted to enquire into the charge, made against the Petitioner regarding use of unfair means at the 1975 M.A. (final) Examination and to submit his explanation in writing or orally with regard to the charge against him. The Petitioner submitted his explanation. The Sub -Committee met on 24 -4 -1978 and decided that the charge against the Petitioner was not established. It recommended that the result of the Petitioner be declared immediately. Thereafter the Examinations Committee in its meeting held on 30 -4 -1978 held the Petitioner guilty of the charge of using unfair means and cancelled his result for the year 1975 and directed the Petitioner to appear at the Examination in the year 1978 or thereafter. The Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of the Exams. Committee D/ -30 -4 -1978. The facts set out above are not disputed. The only question for consideration is whether the Examinations Committee was competent to cancel the Petitioner's result for the year 1975 after the Sub -Committee had found him not guilty of the charge of using unfair means at the examination. The stand taken by the Respondents was that the Sub -Committee had only made a recommendation and had not arrived at any final decision regarding the charge levelled against the Petitioner and consequently the Examinations Committee was competent to pass the final order itself in his case. We find no substance in the stand taken by the Respondents. The resolution of the Examinations Committee dated June 17, 1977 (Annexure '8' to the petition) by which the various Sub -Committees were constituted empowered the Sub -Committee itself to take a final decision in the matter. Again, by its resolution dated 9th April, 1978 (Annexure '9' to the writ petition) the Examinations Committee resolved that the matter regarding use of unfair means in the Ancient History Examination be sent to the Sub -Committee for obtaining its decision by 20th April, 1978. Both these resolutions finally entrusted the decision in the case relating to use of unfair means by the Petitioner to the Sub -Committee constituted for the purpose. The Sub -Committee considered the matter on 24 -4 -1978 and recorded a clear finding that it had not been proved against the petitions that he had used loner was not responsible for the discrepancy found in his answer book. The Petitioner was in any case held entitled to the benefit of the doubt. After recording its decision the Sub -Committee recommended that his result be declared immediately. A bare reading of the report of the Sub -Committee leaves no room for doubt that the Sub -Committee did not find the charge established against the Petitioner. The Sub -Committee was empowered to arrive at a final decision in the matter and it did actually decide the matter. Its decision could not be characterised as a mere recommendation leaving it to the Examinations Committee to come to a final decision itself.
(3.) SECTION 29(3) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 provides that the Examinations Committee may appoint such number of Sub -Committees as it thinks fit, and in particular, may delegate to any one or more persons or Sub -committee the power to deal with and decide cases relating to the use of unfair means by the examinees. As noted earlier, the Examinations Committee did appoint a Sub -Committee to look into and decide the case of use of unfair means by the Petitioner. Having delegated its power to the Sub -Committee it was no longer open to the Examinations Committee to sit in judgment over the decision of the Sub -Committee and arrive to its own conclusion.;