DIVYA CHANDRA Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR ROORKEE UNIVERSITY ROORKEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the appointment of the Enquiry Committee headed by Dr. S. K. Saraf and has prayed that the said committee should be restrained from going into the matter of use of unfair means by the petitioner in the spring semester of B. E. II Year (Electrical) of 1986 and further relief, as may be warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted.

(2.) IT is useful to detail out the facts relevant for the purposes of decision of this writ petition. The petitioner at the relevant time was a student of B. E. (Elec.) III Year of the University of Roorkee. Her case is that she has a brilliant academic record. She is said to have passed I Year examination and the Autumn Semester examination of II Year. After the declaration of the result of B. E. (Elec.) II Year Spring Semester some students of B. E. (Elec.) III Year out of heart burning and jealousy are said to have submitted a representation to the Head of the Department of Electrical Engineering alleging therein gross irregularities and manipulations in the examination and the result of the petitioner in the Spring Semester of 1985-86. These students are said to have been promoted by some persons, opposed to the petitioner's father, who was Head of the Department of W. R. D. T. C. of the University. On the said complaint the Vice-Chancellor is said to have appointed an Enquiry Committee headed by Dr. K. G. Ranga Raju on 26-8-1986. This Committee had Dr. N. K. Nanda and Dr. R. Sinhasan as its members. This Committee was asked to examine specifically the question of any irregularity in evaluating the performance of the petitioner. The Committee was to fix responsibility for such irregularity and also suggest remedial action, if any. The Committee was requested to make suggestions for improvement to avoid similar occurrence. Copy of the order by which this Committee was appointed is Annexure 2 to the writ petition. The petitioner is said to have apprised the said Committee about her merit in the Engineering Course. A copy of that representation is also on the file as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. Before the Ranga Raju Committee the petitioner is said to have appeared on 4th and 8th September, 1986. The members of the Committee asked the petitioner to admit her guilt. The students, who had made the complaint, participated in the proceedings before the Committee and in their presence the petitioner was asked to make confession of her guilt. The petitioner turned down the suggestion. The said Committee submitted its report to the Vice-Chancellor. The petitioner was supplied only with extract of the report. The proceedings before the Ranga Raju Committee are said to be farce and mockery of principles of natural justice and fair play.

(3.) AN opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend herself against the above recommendations of the Enquiry Committee before the unfair-means Committee. She was given an option to present her case in writing or orally and the meeting in this connection was to be held at 4 p. m. on 24-9-1986.