Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in the present writ petition is to the order dated 20.07.2013 (Annexure P1) and 16.08.2013 (Annexure P2) whereby the petitioner was held guilty of Clause 10(h)(i) of the Prevention, Punishment and Procedure concerning cases of Misconduct and use of Unfair Means in or in relation to Examination Part 1 -General. The petitioner was disqualified under Clause 11.1 from attending classes and from appearing in any of the examination of the University for a period of 2 semesters and was treated as fail in one examination and the consequences of failure were to follow and his result of April/May, 2013 was cancelled. This was on account of the fact that he had been found in possession of 18 incriminating slips while giving his examination in ME -402 Industrial Safety and Environment on 22.04.2013, while appearing in the final semester of his Bachelor of Engineering (B.Tech.) Course. Thereafter, vide order dated 16.08.2013 (Annexure P2), the examination result of the candidate stood cancelled for all the subjects for which he had appeared in April/May, 2013 and he was debarred from attending classes and appearing in any examination of the University for a period of 2 semesters and was given liberty to appear in examination in April/May, 2014. Resultantly, the present writ petition was filed.
(2.) THE plea taken in the writ petition is that the petitioner could only be debarred for the examination in which he was caught with incriminating material and not of all the papers for final Semester. The University, in its written statement, took the plea that in view of Clause 2(iii) & (vii), the disqualification from appearing in any of the examination of the University and will be treated as failure in the examination and all consequences of failure in the examination would follow and the said disqualification was to extend from the commencement of the examination which the candidate was detected to have been terminated one day before the commencement of the examination. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the matter is squarely covered against the respondent -University and in favour of the petitioner in view of the judgment in Deepinder Singh Mann v. The Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar and others, : (2010 -3) 159 P.L.R. 485. In the said case also, the same question was in issue and the regulations were also the same, namely, 11.1 & 11.2 and the issue of disqualification and the period of disqualification was gone into. In the said case, the student concerned had not only been disqualified for the examination which he appeared but also for the reappear papers which he sat apart from the other papers which he already appeared in June/July, 2009. After taking into consideration various judgments and also the observations of the Apex Court in Director (Studies) and others v. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, : 2009 (1) R.S.J. 536, the Court came to the conclusion that the respondent -University was not justified in cancelling the theory and practical papers of the entire papers including the reappear papers and Regulation 11.2 did not permit such an action. The writ petition was allowed and the cancellation of the papers of 6th semester and reappear papers for which the petitioner had appeared in June/July, 2009, except the paper of Expert System, was quashed and the cancellation was confined to the abovesaid paper. The reasoning given reads as under: "11. Mr. Amrit Paul, learned counsel for the respondents has tried to convince this Court that the definition of examination under Regulation 2(iv) is comprehensive to mean all the papers. The expression "examination" has to be construed and understood in the context of the regulations framed by the University. The definition has been provided for the purposes of Prevention and Punishment for unfair means and should be interpreted in that context. Since the unfair means has been used in one paper/subject, the cancellation should be confined to only that subject/paper and should not be extended to other papers where the student has not been accused of any unfair means. This seems to be the object of Regulation 11.2, though clause (a) of Regulation 10 is not specifically mentioned in the said regulation. 12. As far as the question of cancellation of examination is concerned, it cannot be extended beyond the examination/paper wherein the student has used/attempted unfair means. In any case, by no stretch of imagination, cancellation should be extended to the re -appear paper of the previous examination though the candidate has appeared during the same period but in separate examination along with the student of lower semesters. 13. In so far the disqualification is concerned, the disqualification has to be from appearing in any examination of the University as defined in Regulation 2(iii). This expression has further been clarified by definition under clause (vii) of Regulation 2 wherein "semester of disqualification" has been defined. The petitioner has been imposed penalty of disqualification for two semesters. The period of disqualification is already over. Even in the impugned order Annexure P -9, the petitioner is permitted to appear in the examination to be held in May/June, 2010 for which he was eligible in June/July, 2009. Thus, the petitioner can now appear in 6th semester examination to he held in May/June, 2010, haying suffered and completed the penalty imposed upon him vide the impugned order. 14. Now the question which remains to be considered is regarding the cancellation of all the papers of 6th semesters and re -appear of previous semesters. Regulation 11.2 provides for cancellation of only such papers in which unfair means has been used/attempted and no other paper. No other rule or regulation has been pressed into service to justify the cancellation of all the papers of 6th semester and particularly re -appear papers of previous semesters. This action of the respondent -University is not justified. 23. As far the cancellation of papers for which the petitioner appeared in June/July, 2009 are concerned, the respondents have cancelled all the Theory and Practical Papers of the entire semesters including reappear papers. Regulation 11.2 do not permit such an action and the cancellation is to be confined to only the papers in which the petitioner has allegedly used unfair means. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is partially allowed. The cancellation of examination for papers of 6th semester and reappear papers for which the petitioner appeared in June/July, 2009, except the papers of "Expert System" is hereby quashed and set aside. Cancellation of examination shall be confined to only one paper of "Expert System". As a consequence, the respondent -University is directed to declare the result of all other papers of 6th semester in which the petitioner appeared in June/July, 2009 including the re -appear papers, within a period of one week and depending upon the outcome of result of these papers, the petitioner shall be entitled to appear/re -appear in those papers. 24. In so far as the right of the petitioner to appear in the examination is concerned, he has already suffered the penalty and the period of disqualification of two semesters is already over. Even vide the impugned order, the petitioner has been permitted to appear in the examination to be held in May/June, 2010. The petitioner shall be entitled to appear in the aforesaid examination accordingly." The abovesaid reasoning is, thus, applicable in the present case also. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, orders dated 20.07.2013 and 16.08.2013 are quashed. The University is directed to declare the result of the petitioner of all the semesters in all other subjects, except the subject of ME -402 Industrial Safety and Environment. The petitioner shall be entitled to sit in the said examination which is to commence in May, 2014. ;