MADAN, J. - (1.) THE short case of the petitioner is that he is a student of first year B. Sc. (Agriculture) Honours of the four year degree course in S. K. N. College of Agriculture, Jobner. He has cleared the first semester with 6. 07 grade point as per the mark sheet vide Annexure-1 dt. 13. 8. 2001. His further case is that on 2. 7. 2001 while he was attempting first year B. Sc. Agriculture (Hons.) II Semester 2000-2001 examination of "elements of Genetics" paper with Roll No. 554, he was found using unfair means and having been caught by the Invigilator on duty, he was debarred from appearing. THE petitioner received a show cause notice dt. 3. 7. 2001 from respondent No. 1 calling from his reply/explanation as to why punishment as per the norms be not imposed upon him. In pursuance of the show cause notice, petitioner appeared before the Committee on 17. 7. 2001 at 11. 30 A. M. and submitted his reply wherein, he clarified that there was no intention on his part to use unfair means and it was due to bonafide mistake that he could not erase certain points noted by him on the admission card for the purpose of his memory. He has also given undertaking not to repeat the same in future.
(2.) IT is pertinent to mention herein to quote hereinbelow the contents of clause 3 (c) of the Information Bulletin, 2000-2001 issued by the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner:- "3. Norms of punishment to candidates guilty of unfairmeans and/or disorderly conduct:- (c) Where a candidate is found having in his/her possession of within his/her reach any material relevant to the syllabus of the examination paper concerned, but has not copied from or used (i) if the behaviour of the candidate on being caught is satisfactory- Present examination shall be cancelled provided that if the material found in possession of the candidate is of insignificant nature, the punishment may be relaxed to the extent of cancellation of the examination of that particular paper (theory or practical as the case may be) and he/she will be treated as having obtained "zero" mark in that paper with all the consequences to follow. However, if the candidate so desires, he/she will be given the option of the appearing in the subsequent whole examination by cancelling the present examination as a whole. " It would be evident from above that the punishment which can be imposed in such like cases is the cancellation of examination of that particular paper in which the petitioner has been caught using unfairmeans or the entire examination as the case may be, which is left to the discretion of the appropriate authority. The case of the petitioner is that without taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also contrary to the recommendations of the Unfairmeans Committee in its meeting held on 17. 7. 2001, vide Notification dt. 30. 7. 2001 awarded punishment to the petitioner of cancellation of the entire examination of IInd Semester. His further case is that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is too harsh and severe and that would effect his academic career adversely. His further case is that in similar circumstances, one Shri Rajendra Singh Bochalia, a student of IInd year B. Sc. Ag. (Hons.) who was also found using unfairmeans while attempting paper of Economic Entomology-I on 29. 9. 2000, on the recommendations of the Unfairmeans Committee meeting held on 27. 9. 2000 awarded the punishment of cancellation of his examination of the said subject and was awarded Zero mark. Hence, the petitioner prayed that the case of the petitioner being similar to that of Bochalia, he should not have been discriminated. In reply to show cause notice, Shri RA Katta, learned counsel appearing for the University of Rajasthan has vehemently controverted the contention of the petitioner by contending inter-alia that the State of Rajasthan has formulated Act No. 27 of the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfairmeans) Act, 1992 (for short `the Act') part II of which is reproduced, as under:- ii) If the behaviour of the candidate on being caught is satisfactory:- In the annual system present examination shall be cancelled and he/she shall be further debarred for one subsequent main examination, if the examination is held twice a year, provided that if the material found in possession of the candidate and or the extent of copying done by the candidate is of insignificant nature, the punishment may be relaxed to the extent of cancelling the present examination only. However, in semester system, present whole examination of the semester shall be cancelled. For rest of the punishment mentioned for punishment in semester system exist. " (As amended) In the above context, learned counsel for the University further contended that Sec. 3 and 4 of the Act go to reveal that present case is covered under the aforesaid provisions. The University has framed the relevant rules in this regard known as "rules for Dealing with Cases of Unfairmeans and Disorderly Conduct of the University Examination". Counsel further contended that punishment has rightly been inflicted upon the petitioner and that too after the report of the Invigilator, Examiner of Sub Committee of Unfairmeans which has subsequently been approved by the Vice Chancellor of the University.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the answer sheet of the petitioner of the concerning subject which has been made available for perusal of this Court by the University. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the entire material on record, I find that this writ petition is devoid of any merit. Hence, the final order of punishment regarding debarring the petitioner from appearing in the Second Semester Examination has been passed, which in my view, is not open to challenge. Moreover, the petitioner has himself admitted in reply to show cause notice that he had written certain notes on the admission card with the help of a Pencil and having confessed the mistake with a promise not to repeat the same in future would by itself not absolve the petitioner of the consequences which are to follow in case of violation of the rules. Hence, it is thus crystally clear that the impugned order/notification dt. 30. 7. 2001 (Ann. 4) which the petitioner has challenged in this writ petition has been passed which in my view, is perfectly just and valid and in accordance with law and the rules and the punishment imposed on the petitioner is minimum one which can be given to a candidate whose behaviour on being caught has been found unsatisfactory. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. . ;