H.R. Khanna, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed by Karamjit Kaur for quashing the order of the Punjab University whereby the Petitioner was disqualified for 1963 and 1964 for the Matriculation Examination. Prayer, has further been made to direct the University to treat the Petitioner as having duly passed the Matriculation Examination held in March 1963.
(2.) ACCORDING to the allegations of the Petitioner, she was a student of Government High School, Bajakhana (Bhatinda) in 1963 and appeared in the Matriculation Examination of the Punjab University held in March 1963. The examination centre of the Petitioner was in Government High School, jaitu. It is stated that the Petitioner fared well in the examination, but when the result was declared it was mentioned that the Petitioner's result would be declared later on. On 8th July 1963 a notice was received by the Petitioner from the Deputy Registrar, Examinations, with the subject 'Confidential enquiry into the unfair means -employed at Jaitu in the Matriculation Examination, March 1963". The Petitioner was advised to appear on 15th July 1963 before a senior officer of the Punjab University who had been deputed to hold confidential enquiry into the alleged complaint of unfair means employed at the above Centre. The Petitioner at the time of the enquiry was asked to narrate some questions, as well as a story of English Paper 'A'. The Petitioner replied that without sufficient time in advance it was not possible for her to write that story. Similar answers were made by the other, students, who had also been called, because of the lapse of four -months since the examination. The University subsequently sent a notification whereby the Petitioner was disqualified for the years 1963 and 1964. The case of the Petitioner is that the action of the University in disqualifying the Petitioner is ultra vires, without jurisdiction and capricious as well as violative of the principles of natural justice, because adequate opportunity. was not given to her of explaining the allegations and malting a defence. The Punjab University in its reply through the Registrar has stated that on 3rd April 1963 Deputy Superintendent in the Matriculation Examination held at Jaitu Centre sent a complaint to the Punjab University that the candidates of Government High School, Jaitu, were given intensive training in the use of unfair means, and that the means adopted by them were both subtle and ingenious. Thirty -five students of that school wore caught red -handed while using unfair means and their cases were reported by the Centre Superintendent to the Punjab University. It was also reported that the Headmaster of the Government High School, Jaitu, had helped his school examinees in their nefarious activities and had hurled threats on the supervisory staff. In consequence of that, the Head Examiners in English and Mathematics were asked to report if they suspected unfair means cases with regard to the candidates of that Centre. They were also requested to send the scripts of the suspected Candidates along with their detailed report about each case. According to the reports of the Head Examiners, apart from the thirty -five candidates who were caught red -handed at the Centre for having used unfair means, seventy -two Candidates were involved. After considering the matter, the Assistant Registrar, Examinations, was deputed to conduct an on -the -spot enquiry at Jaitu. The said Enquiry Officer took down the Statements of the candidates involved including the Petitioner who had appeared under Roll No. 112043 at the said Centre at Jaitu. Certain other students admitted that they were encouraged by Deputy Superintendent to use unfair means and were told the answers. Though the Petitioner denied the charge, yet she was not in a position to re -attempt the question which, it is stated, was copied by her in the Examination Centre. According to the report of the Head Examiner, the Petitioner was found guilty of having received help from outside or to have copied from one another. Her answer -book contained the same answer to Question No. 4 as was contained in the answer -book of thirteen other candidates, including Roll No. 112042 who was just in front of Roll No. 112043. The Punjab University again referred the matter to an Expert for his considered opinion along with the answer -books and the re -attempts of Question No. 4. The Expert observed that he was inclined to believe that the candidates had either made use of their note books or some circulated solved copies. The whole matter was thereafter considered by the Standing Committee appointed for unfair means and it unanimously came to the conclusion that all the candidates including the Petitioner had copied from the material supplied to them during the course of the examination and as such they were 'guilty' of copying under Regulation 12(b) and were disqualified to appear in the Matriculation Examination for two years 1963 and 1964. Subsequently, the Vice -Chancellor himself examined the whole case and agreed with the unanimous -decision of the Standing Committee. According; to the Respondent University, the above facts clearly established that the Petitioner was rightly and justly punished under Regulation 12(b) and that the impugned order was not liable to be quashed. It was further averred that the Petitioner was -given full opportunity to present her case.
(3.) REGULATION 12(b), which has been framed under Section 31 of the, Punjab University Act of 3947 and under which action has been taken against the Petitioner, reads as under: If an answer -book shows that the candidate -has received help from or given help to another candidate or if he is found copying or to have copied from any paper, book, or note, or to have allowed any other candidate to copy from his answer -book or to have taken the examination with notes written on any part of his clothing or body or table or desk or instruments (allowed in the Engineering examinations) like set squares, protectors, slide rules, etc., or is guilty of swallowing, or destroying any note or paper found on him, or talking to a person outside the examination. hall, while going to urinal or consulting notes or books, while outside the examination hall, he shall be disqualified for two years, including that in which he is found guilty if he is a candidate, for an examination held once a year, or for four examinations, including that in which he is found guilty, if he is a candidate for an examination held twice a year. The Standing Committee, which decided against the Petitioner, was appointed by the syndicate under Regulation 19 and it reads as under: The Syndicate shall appoint annually Standing Committee to deal with cases of the alleged misconduct and use of unfair means in connection with examinations. When the Committee is unanimous, its decision shall be final except as given in the provision below. If the Committee is not unanimous the matter shall be referred to the Vice -Chancellor who shall either decide the matter himself or refer it to the Syndicate for decision. Provided that in cases of the alleged use of unfair means in connection with examinations it in the opinion of the Vice -Chancellor facts have been brought to light within 30 days of the receipt of the decision by the candidate which, had they been before the Committee, might have induced' them to come to a decision other than the one arrived at, then the Vice -Chancellor may order -that such facts be reduced to writing and placed" before the Committee. The Committee shall then reconsider the case. A unanimous decision of the Committee shall be final. But in the event of a difference of opinion the case shall, be referred to the Vice -Chancellor' who may either finally decide the case himself or rater it to the Syndicate for final decision as he -thinks fit.;