M.R. Calla, J. - (1.) The petitioner, who is a student of LL.B IInd year at Government Autonomous College, Kota, has filed this writ petition against the order dated 17th November, 1990 passed by the Principal of the said College, whereby his LL.B IInd Year Examination of 1990 was cancelled and he was debarred from appearing at any examination for the year 1991.
(2.) The petitioner has alleged that after passing the M.Com. Examination in the year 1987-88 from the University of Ajmer, he sought admission in LL.B. First Year in 1988-89 in the Government Autonomous College, Kota. He passed the LL.B. First year Examination and was promoted to LL.B. Second Year in the year 1989-90. The petitioner appeared in the said examination of LL.B. 2nd year Exam. 90 from the Government Autonomous College, Kota and was shown absent in the 5th Paper i.e. Public International Law, whereas the petitioner states that he had appeared in the said paper which was held on 21st July, 1990. He has stated that in the mark-sheet of LL.B. 2nd Year Examination, 1990, against the paper of Public International Law he has been shown to be absent. The petitioner has further alleged that the said paper of Public International Law was out of course. As such, the students of the Government Autonomous College, Kota stood up to boycott the same. On intervention of Invigilators and Principal and an assurance to look into the grievance relating to the paper being out of course, the students appeared in the said paper and 15 minutes extra time was allowed to compensate the time lost in the attempt to boycott. The petitioner also stood up after hearing the noise in the room and outside and had thereafter given the paper on intervention of the invigilators and the principal. It is the case of the petitioner that before starting the paper, the invigilators as well as the Principal had pressurised the petitioner to write down in the form that he had made an attempt to snatch the paper from the invigilators; but in fact, no such incident took place. When the petitioner came across the mark-sheet of 2nd Year, 1990 showing him to be absent in the paper of Public International Law, he approached the concerned authorities who assured him to look into the matter. On 17th November, 1990, the Principal of the Government Autonomous College, Kota straightaway passed the punishment order, whereby the petitioner's LL.B. 2nd Year Examination, 1990 was cancelled and he was further debarred from appearing at any examination of the year 1991, without giving any show cause notice and, hence, it is the case of the petitioner that the impugned order was passed against the petitioner without following the principles of natural justice. The petitioner then states that the respondents have not framed any regulations to deal with such kind of cases except the mention made in para 17 of the prospectus of 1990-91 that the students who are found guilty of gross-misconduct or mis-conduct would be liable for disciplinary action in accordance with Ordinance 88 of the University of Ajmer and, even in this Ordinance 88, the punishment of cancellation of the result has not been prescribed. It is against this order dated 17th November, 1990 that the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on 22nd December, 1990.On 10th January, 1991, show cause notice was ordered to be issued to the respondents as to why the writ petition may not be admitted and disposed of.
(3.) On behalf of the respondents, reply to the show cause notice has been filed in which a preliminary objection has been taken that the petitioner had filed representations. But, he had not placed the copies of the representations on record and thereby he has concealed the important material facts from the court while setting up a case of denial of reasonable opportunity. It is also taken as a part of preliminary objection that the petitioner has concealed the fact of apology on the spot and, thus while he had admitted the fact of snatching of the papers and had apologised for the same, he has made a wrong statement and has tried to pollute the pure fountain of justice. It has also been mentioned as a preliminary objection that in academic matters there should be no interference by this Court. While giving para wise reply the petitioner's case has been sought to be traversed stating that the impugned order has been passed as per law. There is no violation of any rule or ordinance and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. It has been alleged in the reply that the question paper of Public International Law of LL.B. 2nd Year was scheduled to be held on 21st July, 1990 from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. As per the rules of examination, the candidate is required to show the admission card before entering the examination hall. On 21st July, 1990, there were two invigilators on duty namely Shri M.M. Jain and Shri M.P. Sharma in Room No. 51 where the petitioner was to take the examination. When the invigilator had asked the petitioner to produce and show the admission card, the petitioner refused to show the same and, when the petitioner was not allowed to enter the examination hall on account of non-production of admission card, he behaved in an unruly manner and treatened the invigilator Shri Jain using abusive language and uttered the words, and the petitioner forcibly entered the examination hall. The invigilator Shri Jain reported the matter to the Vice - Principal S.S. Mathur and, Shri S.D. Kulshreshtha, who were standing in the verandah. Shri Mathur and Shri Kulshreshtha tried to convince the petitioner, but the petitioner paid no heed, rather indulged in discussion with them and started speaking in loud voice and, therefore, the other lecturers on duty - S/Shri Hari Mohan Sharma, S.C. Jain, G.S. Patiyal, S.C. Mehta and G.S. Khinchi also came on the spot. Thereafter the principal of the College also came on the spot. All the Lecturers and the Principal tried to make the petitioner understand, but the petitioner did not listen to them and snatched the bundle of papers from Shri M.P. Sharma - another invigilator and came out from the room in the verandah. The petitioner thereafter returned the papers. This incident took place at 1.55 p.m. i.e. just five minutes before the commencement of the paper. Both the invigilators S/Shri M.M. Jain and M.P. Sharma made a complaint in writing to the Principal. The Principal who was also the Centre Superintendent reported the case in the prescribed form 39-(E). Column III of this form is regarding candidate's statement. Though, the petitioner had initially refused to give his statement and went away at 3.45 p.m. without giving his statement in Col. No. 111, but within five minutes he came back and gave a statement in Col. III (iii) at p. 3 of the form as under: It is the case of the respondents that as per N.B.(ii) at page 3 of this form 39(E), no other representation is required to be considered, the petitioner had also apologised and felt sorry for the misconduct and disorderly behaviour committed by him and, while he was allowed to sit in the examination he was given a second answer book. It was on account of this disorderly conduct of the petitioner that the entire examination of the 5th paper i.e. Public International Law was delayed by 15 minutes later the petitioner was made to sit in the separate room and all the students were given 15 minutes extra time. The report of the Centre Superintendent (Principal of the College), as contained in Form 39 (E), the written complaints/reports of both the invigilators - S/Shri M.M. Jain and M.P. Sharma and written apology of the petitioner in Form 39(E) were submitted to the Unfair Means Committee. The committee considered the entire material, including the statement made by the petitioner, in Form No. 39(E) and found that the act of the petitioner was of gross misconduct and the Committee recommended that the petitioner's present examination of 1990 be cancelled and, he may be debarred from appearing in any examination of 1991. It has also been submitted that the Committee consisted of four members who are retired personnel and the decision of this Committee was conveyed by the Principal of the College to the petitioner. The petitioner then made an application (Annx. R/2) to the principal of the College, wherein he again felt sorry for the fault committed by him. The matter was again placed before the Unfair Means Committee for review of the petitioner's application and the petitioner also submitted another application on 5th December, 1990 in writing to the Principal of the College. The Principal marked this application to put before the Unfair Means Committee. A meeting of the Committee was held on 10th Jan., 1991. The Committee considered the case and unanimously opined for no change in the decision taken earlier and reiterated its earlier decision in all the four cases which were reviewed, including that of the petitioner. It has been stated that the petitioner has concealed these important facts from the Court. It has then been stated that so far as the delivery of the mark-sheet to the petitioner is concerned, the same was issued by inadvertence of the staff of the college because normally the candidates against whom a case of use of unfair means, misconduct or disorderly behaviour is made out, the result is withheld till the decision of the Unfair Means Committee and, thus, it is a case of mistake on the "part of the office of the College. It has been stated in para 6 that it is absolutely incorrect that the paper Public International Law was out of course and that all the students of the college had stood up to boycott the same. The petitioner's allegations of giving assurance have also been denied. It has been stated that the story of boycotting the paper on the ground that it was out of course is fabricated. No complaint was ever made by any examinee that the paper was out of course and. even the petitioner had not filed any such complaint, nor did he say so in the statement made by him. Regarding para 17 of the prospectus, it has been submitted in the reply that the same is not applicable as it does not govern the cases relating to examinations. The Government Autonomous College, Kota is affiliated to the Ajmer University and Ordinance 88 governs the cases of indiscipline and misconduct during the course of study; and not the case of unfair means, indiscipline and unruly behaviour during the course of examination. Document Annx. R/5 has also been placed on record, which is a letter by OSD, Education Gr. IV Department sent to the Principal of the Government Autonomous College, Kota, wherein it has been held out that complete academic autonomy had been conferred on the College and the decision was to be taken at the level of the Principal, Government Autonomous College, Kota.;