Sunil Kumar Garg, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 16.9.2002 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 9.9.2002 (Annex. 1) passed by the respondent No. 1 Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer (for short "University") by which the LL.B. Second Year Examination -2002 of the petitioner conducted by the respondent No. 1 University was cancelled and furthermore, the petitioner was debarred from appearing in any examination of the respondent No. 1 University for the year 2003, be quashed and set aside.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner as put forward by her in this writ petition is as follows: The petitioner was admitted in the course of LL.B. Ist year in Lohiya College, Churu for the educational session 2000 -2001. The petitioner was to appear in LL.B. First Year Examination, which was sought to be commenced from 16.4.2001. The petitioner, on 9.4.2001, approached to the office of Lohiya College, Churu for obtaining permission letter to appear in the said examination, but the same was not supplied to her for no just and valid reason. The petitioner, in these circumstances, preferred a civil suit in the Court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Churu and the learned Civil Judge (JD), Churu passed an interim order in favour of the petitioner on the application preferred under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as a consequence of which, the petitioner appeared in LL.B. First Year Examination. The said civil suit is still pending for its adjudication before the competent civil court. However, the result of the petitioner was not declared by the respondent No. 1 as the learned Civil Court by order dated 18.4.2001 while directing the respondent No. 1 University to permit the petitioner in LL.B. First Year Examination put a condition that the result of the petitioner be not declared without permission of the Court. Therefore, another application was preferred by the petitioner in the suit referred to above and under the direction of the court dated 8.10.2001, the result of the petitioner for LL.B. First Year Examination was declared by the respondent No. 1 University. The petitioner qualified the said examination. It was further submitted by the petitioner that as she failed to appear in the examination held on 16.4.2001, therefore, a special supplementary examination was conducted by the respondent No. 1 University on 28.10.2001. The result of the petitioner for LL.B. First Year Academic Spl. Supplementary Examination was declared on 14.3.2002. The further case of the petitioner is that after declaration of the result on 14.3.2002, the petitioner appeared in LL.B. Second Year Examination 2002 and when on 26.4.2002, the petitioner was undertaking examination of the paper "Company Law", the Invigilator alongwith certain other staff of the College came to the petitioner and snatched her examination note book and she was also threatened by the Invigilator and other persons, who came with the Invigilator. The necessary facts in this regard were stated by the petitioner in her representation dated 27.4.2002 submitted to the Vice Chancellor. A copy of the said representation dated 27.4.2002 is marked as Annex. 2. The petitioner sent the said representation to the Vice Chancellor through registered post. On the same day i.e. on 26.4.2002, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the S.H.O. Police Station Churu, a copy of which is marked as Annex. 3. The further case of the petitioner is that in utter surprise of the above incident for which she had already made complaints against the authorities, she received the impugned order Annex. 1 dated 9.9.2002 by which LL.B. Second Year Examination of the petitioner for the year 2002 was cancelled and furthermore, the petitioner was debarred from appearing in any of the examinations conducted by the respondent No. 1 University for the year 2003 and this order Annex. 1 has been challenged in this writ petition and the main ground of challenge to Annex. 1 is that before passing the impugned order Annex. 1, no opportunity of hearing was allowed to the petitioner as it was necessary because (i) she had already made complaints before the concerned authorities through Annex. 2 and Annex. 3 about the so -called incident and (ii) furthermore, Rule 5(viii)(b) of the Rules for dealing with cases of unfair -means and disorderly conduct at the University Examination requires personal hearing before passing any adverse order by the competent authority. Since before passing the impugned order Annex. 1 no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner, therefore, principles of natural justice have been violated in this case and as that ground alone, the impugned order Annex. 1 dated 9.9.2002 is liable to be set aside. Hence, this writ petition with the prayer as stated above. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondent No. 1 and the main case of the respondent No. 1 is that the incident as put -forward by the petitioner was not correct one, but as a matter of fact, a preliminary report was submitted by the Invigilator to the effect that before the question paper was delivered to the petitioner, she started writing in the answer books and when this was objected, she started quarreling and spoke ugly words and this conduct of the petitioner was found against the norms of the examination and after the report of the Invigilator, the matter was examined after taking expert's opinion and the decision was taken by the respondent No. 1 University to maintain discipline in the examination and in support of that, Annex. R/1 was produced by the respondent No. 1 University which contains the reports of the invigilator as well as expert and Centre Superintendent. On point of principle of natural justice, the case of the respondent No. 1 University is that the matter was examined by the Examining Committee, therefore, no question of giving opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner arises. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and gone through the materials available on record.
(3.) THE incident as put forward by the petitioner and as reflected in Annex. R/1, which was produced by the respondent No. 1 University alongwith the reply, is altogether different one in nature.;