- (1.) This order shall dispose of two petitions bearing C.W.P. No. 4797 of 1993 (Ms. Paramjeet Kaur and others vs. Panjab University and others) and C.W.P.No. 9616 of 1993 (Jagdish Singh and others vs. Panjab University and others). The relief asked for in C.W.P. 4597 of 1993 is to declare replacement/substitutions of original paper setters and external examiners appointed by the respondent-University for specific term on the recommendations of the Board of Studies in respect of M.A. II (Physical Education) Examination, 1993 in theory paper No. 4 (Science of Training and Coaching) and theory paper No. 5 (Adapted Physical Education) and Practicals in Athletics and Games being illegal and in gross violation of the Panjab University Act, 1947 and the Regulations made thereunder. In asmuch as, during the pendency of this writ petition, the University has cancelled theory paper 4 (Science of Training and Coaching-A for MA. Part (Physical of Training and Coaching -A for M.A. Part (Physical Education) and Practical Lesson on Athletics for B.P.Ed. MA. Part I and M.A. Part II. Civil Writ Petition No. 9616 of 1993 has been filed praying therein that the said order of the respondent-University be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari.
(2.) Facts as extracted from Civil Writ Petition 4597 of 1993 reveal that department of Physical Education, Panjab University offers under-graduate and post-graduate degree/diploma courses, B.P. Ed. (Bachelor of Physical Education, M.A. (Physical Education). Objective of the aforesaid post-graduate courses, it is stated, is that in the subject of Physical Education students are to be qualified to be leaders in the field of physical Education, sports and Recreation. The training involves a great deal of physical and mental work and therefore, only those who have built bodies, sound health, high grades and sports and a good academic record shall be suitable for it. It is pleaded that cherishing the same objective, petition No. 3 obtained a degree of Bachelor of physical Education as a regular student and was awarded a Gold Medal for undergoing the said degree course. Petitioners were admitted to two years postgraduate degree course in physical Education during the academic year 1991-92, after having completed the eligibility conditions as laid in the hand-book of information for the year 1991 published by the respondent-University. The petitioners appeared in M.A. Part I examination in the year 1992 and while they successfully passed, petitioner No. 3 was adjudged the topper in the University. During their tenure as students of M.A. Part II, they were deputed to assist and participate in conducting the inter college relay race competition which was being organised under the aegis of Panjab University Campus Sports Department, where respondent No. 3 is employed as Deputy Director. During the said relay races, respondents No. 8, Reet Mohinder Singh, Deputy Director, Campus Sports, Panjab University, Chandigarh did not feel the presence of the women students, including the petitioner, who were on duty and it is pleaded that he exhibited behaviour which was of unbecoming of an officer of the respondent-University. He used objectionable language. He misbehaved with women students to such an extent that while snatching away watches from those who were on 'Time Keepers duty', including petitioner No. 1 also physically pushed them in the presence of hundreds of spectators. The students withdrew from the scene under protest and lodged a complaint with respondent No. 5, Lecturer Department of Physical Education, through their class representative. It is pleaded that respondent No. 5, instead of looking into the complaint of the petitioners rather snubbed and insulted them and supported the stand of respondent No. 8 who happened to be his personal friend. The matter was, therefore, taken to the faculty members of the Physical Education who decided to constitute a committee of four facultv members to look into their grievances regarding the aforesaid incident which was created by respondent No. 8 at the time of Athletic Meet. Based on the findings of the committee of the faculty members, respondent No. 5 as chairman of the Department was requested to convey the grave concern about misbehaviour on behalf of respondent No. 8 and also to the effect that in future the students of the department will be deputed as a team under the charge of D.S. Toor, Lecturer, it is pleaded that when next time, students were deputed under the charge of D.S. Toor, respondent No. 8 did not take kindly of it and this attitude of respondent No. 8 was reported to the Vice-Chancellor by the concerned teacher incharge. This, it is further pleaded embittered respondent No. 8 who then nursed a grudge and animosity against the petitioners and therefore, respondem No. 5, thereafter openly stated that the petitioners will be taught a lesson. Petitioners thereafter apprehended some harm to them at the instance or respondents No. 5 and 8. It is pleaded that the apprehension they entertained came true when on 29th March, 1993, which date was fixed for practical Athletics Examination, no external examiner arrived and all of a sudden, respondent No. 8 appeared on the scene at about 3.00 P.M. and announced that he had simply come to help respondent No. 5 to take practical examination. He also declared that respondent No. 5 being the chairperson of the department was all in all. Thereafter, a formal drama in the name of taking examination was enacted by asking the petitioners to explain the lesson plan of 45 minutes duration within two minutes. No viva was conducted and rather petitioners were tauntedly told their performance in the practical examination was subject to the subjective assessment of the examiners. This drama, it is further pleaded, continued next day on 30th March. 1993 also whereupon at about 3.50 P.M. the petitioners reported and complained the arbitrary way of conducting the annual examination to the Dean University Instruction and brought to his notice conduct of respondent No. 5 and 8 while taking the practical examination in Athletics. They also complained about the attitude of respondent No. 7 who exhibited his bias towards petitioners No. 2 and 3 while acting as internal examiner for basket ball specialisation. Respondent No. 7 it is further pleaded had been exerting pressure on girl students, including petitioner No. 2, to date with him to get benefits in the internal assessment. It is also pleaded that petitioner No. 2 had refused the proposal of dating with respondent No. 7 and therefore, he has shown his bias during the examination. On 2nd April, 1993, petitioners gave a detailed complaint in writing, copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure P-1 pointing out that respondent No. 8 had, in fact, been acting as External Examiner, when he was not so qualified and that his appointment as External Examiner was in violation of the University rules. The petitioners continued visiting office of the Dean University Instruction almost daily who told them that the matter was pending with the Vice-Chancellor. Elder brother of petition No. 3 feeling concerned, brought the matter to the notice of the Governor of Punjab vide letter dated 9th April, 1993, copy of the said letter has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. Father of petitioner No. 2 represented to the Governor of Punjab, with a copy of the Vice- Chancellor on 19th April, 1994. Copy of this has also been placed on record as Annexure P-3. This matter attracted the attention of the media and consequently news item appeared in The Tribune on 19th April, 1993 highlighting the impropriety and illegality of the appointment of respondent No. 8 as external examiner against the rules by respondent No. 5. The news item so appeared in the Tribune has been placed on record as Annexure P-4. On 19th April, 1993, the petitioners complained with regard to appointment of respondent No. 8 as External Examiner vide their representation pointing out that respondent No. 2, being guardian and custodian to protect their interests should look into the matter, when efforts of the petitioners brought no tangible results and when they were still pursuing the matter it came to their notice on 24th April, 1993 that the senior most teacher of the rank of Professor Ms. J. Bhullar, who was the only professor in the Department, vide her reported dated 20.4.1993 submitted to the Vice-Chancellor disclosed that Dr. A.K. Uppal Professor and Deputy Dean of L.D. National College of Physical Education, Gwalior, was, in fact the paper setter and examiner of the theory paper as well as external examiner of the Practical in Athletics, who had been changed by respondent No. 5 of his own and that respondent No. 5 had made a wrong statement certifying the approval of the Board of Studies to some other examiners. A copy of the aforesaid report has been placed on record as Annexure P-6. The petitioners further averred that, in fact, Board of Studies in its meeting held in September, 1993 had appointed Dr. A.K. Uppal as paper setter of theory paper. Science and Training of coaching- Athletics and external examine for practical examination in Athletics and external examiner for practical examination in Athletics for four years. Dr. Uppal is the highest qualified person who throughout had distinguished academic and teaching career in physical education and is the only person in India who possesses the Post Doctoral Degree i.e. D. Lit. In this view of the matter, it is pleaded, change brought about unceremoniously of distinguished academician as paper setter and external examiner was in flagrant disregard to the wisdom of the Board of Studies showing scant regard to the University statute. As a sequel to the issue culminating in the campus in view of Annexure P-6, petitioners it is pleaded also came across a copy of the letter dated 18th March, 1993, addressed to the vice-chancellor by Shri K.S.Sharma, who was the predecessor-in-office of the Chairman of the Department of Physical Education of respondent No. 5. A copy of the letter aforesaid has also been annexed as Annexure P-7 to the petition. This letter, it is further pleaded revealed volume of improprieties committed by respondent No. 5 by arbitrarily changing the External Examiner Dr. D.S. Bhandari from Kurukshetra University who had been appointed as External Examiner for Gymnastics on the recommendations of the Board of studies for a term of three wears. The case of the petitioner is that the examiner and paper setter recommended by Board of Studies was changed by respondent No. 5 to give undue benefit to candidate to whom they wanted to favour. One such person is stated to be respondent No. 6. It is stated that the said respondent is always doing paper work of the Chairman of the department He was earlier working as Clerk in the department of physical education. Respondent No. 5, thus, not only changed the paper setter and external examiner referred to above but also the External Examiner for the Basket Ball specialisation at the instances of respondent No. 7 and appointed his friend so as to manipulate the evaluation in the examination to his liking for benefitting his favourities. It is further pleaded that respondent No. 6 joined the department of Physical Education as Clerk and by sheer manipulation on his part, he got himself appointed on technical post of Technician Grade II for which essential qualification in B.Sc. He then further got his promotion as Technician Grade I as he had great longing to do M.A. in physical education but he was not fulfilling the requisite qualifications. Thereafter, he decided to get admission through back door entry, that is, by first joining B.P.Ed. and later on manipulating admission in M.A. Physical Education. He even did not qualify the standard physical theory test, which is said to be pre-requisite for admission to the said course but somehow of the other managed to get admission during the academic year 1991-92 and thereafter managed to get his admission transferred from B.P.Ed. to M.A. Part I physical Education with the help of bogus certificate showing his participation in the National Games. Respondent No. 8 who is a non-teaching employee of the University, was not qualified to be appointed as External Examiner much less to act as a replacement as an external examiner by the examinee of Dr. A.K. Uppal, Professor and Deputy Dean of L.B. National College of Physical Education, Gwalior, who was earlier appointed as paper setter and external examiner for four years on the recommendations of the Board of Studies. It is in the wake of circumstances fully narrated above that relief as indicated in the earlier part of the judgment has been asked for.
(3.) The main point seeking the relief aforesaid rests on the grounds, inter alia, that it is statutory duty of the respondent-University to conduct fair examination and that the authorities are charged with working out modalities and responsibility for preparation to conduct examination under statutory obligation to maintain integrity and to observe all codal and moral responsibility in this behalf. Annexures P-4, P-6 and P-7, it is pleaded and so argued by the learned counsel are sufficient to manifest that the respondents failed to maintained absolute integrity in discharging the functions of the Chairman of the Department of Physical Education and rather arbitrarily, illegally and without any competence changed the paper sheets and external examiners by his sheer whims and fancies and therefore, the practical examination for lesson on Training and coaching in Athletics and Games particularly in Gymnastics and Basket Ball specailisation particularly in Gymnastics and basket ball specialisation carrying 200 marks out of the total of 700 marks are vitiated and cannot be held to be validity conducted. It is further the case of the petitioners that the appointment of paper setters and examiners is governed by the general rules contained in the University Calendar Volume III, 1985. The change brought about in the manner as referred to above it is argued is against the general rules. Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 7.1, 7.2,8, 9.1, 10 and 11 which are relevant for appreciating the points noticed above, read thus:- 1.1 Each Board of studies shall suggest paper setters and examiners in the its subject(s). Such recommendations shall be made by the various boards by the following dates. (i) in the case of paper-sheets, end of July of the year previous to the year of examination; and (ii) in the case of Head Examiners and Sub-Examiners 15th of November, of the year proceeding the examination. If any. Board fails to make its recommendations by the above dates, the Revising Committee may process to make its own recommendations more or less on the basis of last year's list. 1.2 In making their recommendations, the Boards shall follow such rules and directions as may be prescribed by the syndicate of the subject. The Board shall also follow the qualifications laid down by the Syndicate for appointment of examiners for the various examinations. 1.3 The recommendations of each Board, before submissions of the Syndicate shall be scrutinised and reviewed by the Revising Committee. xx xxx xx xx xx 7.1 If a paper-setter or examiner is shown to be unable to perform the work or to conform to the direction of the University, the Vice-Chancellor shall have power to cancel the appointed of such examiner. 7.2 If the Vice-chancellor finds that the work or conduct of an examiner is unsatisfactory, he may remove his name from the register or disqualify him for appointment as examiner for a specified period or take such other action as he may consider fit. 8. Where the appointment of an examiner is cancelled by the Vice- Chancellor or an examiner, for any cause, is incapable of acting as such or does not accept the appointment, or an appointment becomes necessary as an emergency measure, the Vice-Chancellor shall appoint a substitute examiner, he shall consult the Head of the Department of Studies in University or the Convener of the Board of Studies concerned, before making the appointment. 9.1 Paper-Setters, external/internal examiners, head-examiners, sub- examiners and single examiners shall ordinarily be appointed for four years for all examinations except M.B.B.S., M.D., M.S. and other post-graduate diploma examination in the Medical Facilty who shall be appointed for three years.............. xxx xxxxxxxxx 10. No one shall be appointed as Paper-setter. (i) to (ii) xxxxxxxx (iii) if he does not possess teaching experience in the subject for - (i) 10 years or (2) 5 years in the case of a University Professor. Provided that- 1. This condition may be relaxed in the case of a subject like 2. In the case of M.A. Examination, ordinarily no person below the status of a reader in another University with less than 5 years' teaching experience shall be appointed as paper-setter/external examiner. 3 to 4 xxxxxxxx 11. The following shall not be eligible for appointment as paper setters. Head examiner or examiners:- (i) to (iii) x x x x x x x (iii) A person holding a not-teaching post, unless he (i) Possesses the required qualifications and teaching experience etc. laid down under the rules and has taught the subject within the last two years of his appointment as examiner. or (ii) is a part-time teacher teaching the subject concerned and possesses the minimum teaching laid down in the rules. xxxxxxxxxx;