GH MOHI-UD-DIN Vs. UNIVERSITY OF JAMMU & KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition filed by Ghulam Mohi -ud -Din, the petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution praying for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus and also quashing the order dated 31st of May 1968 of the respondent whereby the petitioner has been disqualified from appearing in any University examination for a period of three years and also directing the respondent to announce the result of the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner has averred in this petition that he appeared from S. P. College Srinagar in the Pre -University Examination (Medical Group) of the Jammu and Kashmir University held in November 1967 under Roll No. 660. The petitioners examination Centre was at S. P. College Srinagar. The Botany paper was unexpected. The candidates in the hall went on strike on this score. However, they were pursuaded to return to the examination hall and resume the examination. The petitioner,who was at work with the question paper, was caught and man -handled by Mr. Bagati, the Deputy Superintendent Incharge of the Centre, as this gentleman entertained some wrong notion about the petitioner that he was responsible for the strike. Obscene and indecent language was used by the said Deputy Superintendent. When the petitioner objected to this the Deputy Superintendent picked up some leaves of book from the floor of the examination hall and accused the petitioner of copying from this printed material and hand -written material. The answer book of the petitioner was snatched from him. A fresh answer book was supplied to the petitioner but the petitioner in protest returned the second answer book in blank. Afterwards the petitioner received a show cause notice dated 6 -2 -1968 from the joint Registrar of the Jammu and Kashmir University calling upon him to show cause Why he be not disqualified from appearing in University Examination for three years. In reply to the said notice the petitioner submitted to the Joint Registrar his Explanation dated 9 -2 -1968 (Annexure A) wherein the petitioner explained the whole position. Among other things, the petitioner while denying the allegations made against him demanded a full fledged enquiry and expressed his willingness to appear in person for proving counter allegations, but uptill now neither the petitioner received any copy of the original complaint nor he was afforded any opportunity to establish his counter allegations by evidence and thus the petitioner was denied the right of defence and of being heard which was contrary to the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was afterwards informed that the syndicate had issued orders disqualifying the petitioner for three years in confirmity with the recommendations of the Committee for the scrutiny of unfair means, although the decision has not been formally communicated to the petitioner so far. Against the recommendations of the committee for scrutiny of unfair means the petitioner had made two petitions, one to the Chancellor (Annexure B) and the second to the Syndicate (Annexure E) praying for justice but the same has been denied to him. The procedure adopted by the University authorities is contrary to the statutes of the University and also violative of the principles of natural justice. In these circumstances it is prayed that the order passed by the respondent may be quashed. In support of the petition the petitioner has filed an affidavit.

(3.) THE respondent was called upon to answer the writ petition. The Vice Chanceller of the University in his counter affidavit has controverted the allegations made in the writ petition ; that there was any strike organised in the examination hall by the examinees has also been denied by him. It has further been averred in this affidavit that there has "been due compliance of the statutes of the University and that the petitioner who was caught red -handed while copying from spurious material has rightly been disqualified by the Syndicate.