Dixtt, C.J. - (1.)By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner prays for the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing a decision of the University of Sagar cancelling the result of the Previous LLB. Examination taken by the applicant in May 1960 and debarring him from appearing at any supplementary examination of 1960, or at the examination to be held in 1961. The applicant also prays that the opponents be restrained from giving effect to that decision which was notified by the University on 24th August 1960 (Annexure, VI).
(2.)The matter arises thus. The petitioner presented himself as an examinee at the Previous LL.B. Examination of the University at the Raipur centre. The examination was held in May 1960. The results of the examination were declared on 18th July 1960. The petitioner was one of those declared as successful in the examination. It appears that on or about the 9th of May 1960 some person addressed a communication to the Registrar of the University saying that the examination at the Raipur centre was not properly conducted by the invigilators and that use of unfair means was resorted to by a number of examinees and the invigilators were unable to control them. On receipt of this information and complaints of that nature from other sources the Registrar of the University sent a memo to the invigilator at the Raipur centre drawing his attention to the Circulars issued on 4th May 1960, and 13th May 1960 about candidates found using unfair means at the examination. The first Circular asked the Principals and Officers-in-Charge of University Examinations to expel any student found using unfair means or violating the rules framed for that purpose; the expulsion was to be only for that day. It also directed that on the detection of such a case a statement of the examinee and the invigilator should be sent to the University office and the examinee should be allowed to appear for subsequent papers. The second Circular of 13th May 1960, directed the persons in charge of examinations to send a complete list of such cases detected at an early date. The invigilator at the Raipur centre did not send to the University the information required by the Circular of 13th May 1960. In reply to the memo of the Registrar dated llth June 1960 he however wrote that he had not noted down the roll-numbers or names of the examinees against whom action of expulsion was taken but that he had noted all the necessary details in regard to examinees "from whose possession notes, papers, etc., were seized and whose conduct in the examination was doubtful or suspicious". The invigilator forwarded a list of such examinees which included the name of the petitioner. According to this report of the invigilator, on 20th May 1960 the petitioner was found in possession of some printed questions and answers which had a bearing on the question paper which he had to answer that day. The invigilator forwarded this printed matter found in possession of the applicant along with his statement which was in these words: "Yes, I have given several paper to your honour which had been handed over by me during Exam, (sic.)." The report of the invigilator was then placed before the Results Committee constituted by the Executive Council. The Committee found that the petitioner and some other examinees had used unfair means at the examination. The report was accepted by the Executive Council of the University and action which is now being challenged was taken by the University. The applicant did not dispute before us that on 20th May 1960 he handed over certain printed questions and answers to the invigilator. At the hearing he, however, sought to explain this by saying that the printed matter was lying on the floor close to where he was sitting in the examination-hall and that he was asked to pick up and hand it over to the invigilator; and that he himself did not bring them in the examination-hall or make any use of them.
(3.)The petitioner contends that the decision taken by the University is invalid, null and void for the reasons that under Articles 12, 13 and 14 of Ordinance No. 19 action can be taken against an examinee only before the declaration of the result of the examination and that once a candidate is declared to have passed an examination his result cannot be cancelled and he cannot also be debarred from appearing at any subsequent examination; that there was no material on which the University authorities could have satisfied themselves that he had used unfair means at the examination; and that no proper enquiry into the charge against him was held and he was not given any opportunity of meeting the charge.