MADAN, J. - (1.) THIS special appeal has been preferred u/s. 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 against the order dated 12. 8. 1998 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4013/98, by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant was dismissed.
(2.) THE facts which are relevant for deciding the controversy herein briefly are that the appellant who is a Lecturer Ist Grade appeared in the examination of paper, `purana Itihas' of `acharya' Part-II Examination, 1997 which was held on 17. 7. 97 at Maharaja Sanskrit College, Jaipur. During the examination, a case of unfair means was registered against the appellant on the allegation that she was caught with material using unfair means. THE appellant has controverted this story alleging that the real facts are different. While invigilator Vinod Kumar Sharma misbehaved with her as a result of which she had slapped him. Consequently, being annoyed, the invigilator threatened her to get her debarred from the aforesaid examination. She lodged the FIR with the police against the invigilator. THErefore, she made series of representations to the higher authorities as well as the State Government for demand of justice. THE appellant received a letter dated 11. 11. 97 intimating her that her case is to be considered by the UM Standing Committee appointed for the purpose at its meeting held on 20. 11. 97. Against this letter, she submitted a representation explaining the whole incident in detail. She also confirmed that she would personally appear before the Committee seeking personal audience in the matter and she did appear before the said Committee on 20. 11. 97 itself. As per the appellant's case, the Committee allowed her to give answers to the five written questions. THEreafter, vide impugned order dated 24. 6. 98, the appe-llant was informed as under: " THE UM Standing Committee has also come to the conclusion that the report of the examiner proved copying in the answer-book and on the basis of your confession on the record and evidence taken by the Committee an act of gross indiscipline and misconduct has been proved. " It was under the above circumstances that the Committee took the decision that the appellant deserves to be debarred from appearing in any examination for two consecutive years i. e. 1998 & 1999 as recommended by the Committee. Against this decision, the appellant made a representation, but in vain. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the appellant earlier challenged the impugned order dated 24. 6. 98 (Annexure-12 in SBCWP No. 4013/98) which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by a very well reasoned order and against which the present appeal has been preferred. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and also exa-mined the contentions as advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant with a reference to the relevant material available on record. Prima-facie, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 24. 6. 98 (Annexure-12) by which debarring the appellant from appearing in any examination of the University for two years i. e. 1998 & 1999 passed in pursuance of the recommendations of the UM Stan-ding Committee specially convened for this purpose by the University does not call for any interference by this Court. It is a well reasoned order. Since it is clear that the Committee had arrived at its subjective satisfaction after taking overall view of matter and thereafter the order was passed objectively on the basis of the confessional statement of the appellant on the record and the evidence taken by the Co-mmittee after giving her sufficient opportunity of personal hearing and Committee was of the view that a case of gross indiscipline and misconduct as per the rules stood proved. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appellant had not made any confessional statement, as referred to by the Committee in its impugned order, whereas as per the findings recorded by the Committee it is only on the basis of her confessional statement as is apparent from the perusal of Annexure 12 dated 24. 6. 98 that he appellant was caught red-handed with material using unfair means on the basis of which a case was registered. She made the representations on 16. 11. 97, 25. 3. 98 and a third repre-sentation which was undated received by the University on 28. 3. 98. All these representations were placed together before the Committee for its consideration and a personal hearing was also given to the appellant and she had appeared on 20. 11. 97. It is only after going through the entire material as well as the representations made by the appellant that an overall view was taken by the members of the Committee that the conduct and behaviour of the appellant was unbecoming of a candidate who had appeared in the aforesaid examination more particularly being a lecturer herself as to what standards she would be laying down for other students is too much for us to express.
(3.) DURING the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the appellant had neither made any confessional statement nor any opportunity of leading evidence was extended to her by the Committee and the decision has been taken in absence of any cogent material available on the record. It has further been contended that she was not supplied with the relevant material so as to controvert the same in her defence. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Prem Prakash Kaluniya vs. The Punjab University (1); and of this Court in case of Ajay Singh vs. The Board of Technical Education & Anr. We have examined the ratio of the aforesaid decisions. We are of the view that the same are distinguishable being not applica-ble to this case. We are further of the view that there is ample evidence available on record with regard to the allegations made against the appellant and it is not proper for this Court to substitute its own judgment over the well reasoned findings of the Committee which had ample evidence available before it to corroborate her confe-ssional statement with regard to the allegations made against her. It was under the aforesaid circumstances that the Vice-Chancellor of the University had directed that her candidature in the examination of 1997 be cancelled and she may be debarred to appear in any examination for two consecutive years i. e. 1998 & 1999 as recommended by the Committee. Hence we find no legal infirmity in the impugned order dated 24. 6. 98 and also in the impugned order dated 12. 8. 98. This special appeal, being devoid of merit, is consequently dismissed. . ;