- (1.) As per the facts stated in the memo of writ petition, the petitioner appeared in 3rd Year Electrical Engineering Examination held in the month of November, 1989. He was alleged to have used unfair means in the examination held on 10.5.1990. A notice dated 21.7.90 was served on the petitioner to submit his explanation. The petitioner submitted the reply on 21.7.1990 itself. In, the reply, he had given detailed explanation denying the charges levelled against him. He requested that he should be supplied copies of the Invigilator's report, Examiner's report, copy of admission letter and copy of his answer book. He further made request for affording personal hearing but no documents, as requested by him, were supplied to him and the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 30.11.1990 cancelled the petitioner's examination of 3rd Year Electrical Engineering, held in the month of November, 1989. He was further debarred from appearing in the examination to be held till May, 1990 and was also further directed not to study in the institution. The present writ petition has been filed on 10.12.1990 seeking to quash the orders Annexures-5 and 6, dated 30.11.1990 and 6.12.1990 respectively. The writ petition was admitted on 12.12.1990 and notices were issued to the respondents. Reply on behalf of the respondents has been filed on 16.1.1991. Since the matter could not be disposed of, the petitioner was permitted to sit provisionally in the examination of Third Year Electrical Engineering to be held in 1991 but the result of the petitioner was not to be declared without the permission of the court. Arguments have been heard. Record has also been perused.
(2.) In the reply filed on behalf of respondents, it has been submitted that as the petitioner informed at 8 a.m. that he had no admission card, process for preparation of duplicate admission card was started but subsequently at 8.40 a.m. the original admission card of the petitioner was recovered from his table in the examination hall. Therefore, no duplicate card was issued and even the fee of Rs. 5/- taken from the petitioner for issuing duplicate admission card was returned. The admission card recovered from the petitioner contained notes on its back written by pencil between the printed lines. An enquiry was conducted in the matter by Joint Director, Technical Education, on the recommendation of the Examination Results Committee. The Examination Results Committee after going through the report thought that the matter required detailed enquiry. Therefore, the Joint Director, Technical Education, held a detailed enquiry and examined Shri M.I. Meghani, Principal, Government Polytechnic, Kota, Shri D.N. Verma, former Head of the Department (Mechanical), Govt. Polytechnic, Kota, Shri A. Sriniwasan, Lecturer (Instrumentation), Polytechnic, Kota. The petitioner was found guilty of using unfair means and certain administrative lapses had also taken place as mentioned in the report Annexure R-l, dated 20.11.1990. The Examination Results Committee after going through the report, accepted the same and passed the impugned order dated 30.11.1990.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has very vehemently submitted that in the present case, the principles of natural justice have been flagrantly violated and has placed reliance on Dilip Singh v. The University of Jodhpur, 1978 WLN(UC) 462, Mahendra Mathur v. University of Udaipur and Ors.,1979 WLN(UC) 196, Narendra Gupta v. University of Rajasthan,1986 RLR 190, Miss Anita Mittal v. Sukhadia University,1986 2 WLN(Raj) 743, Mohd. Aqbar v. University of Udaipur (Writ Petition No. 2949OF 1988 (DB), decided on 18.11.1988 by this Court) and Ajay Kumar Mittal v. Vice Chancellor Roorkee University and Ors., 1992 2 LLJ 634.;