Judgement

GROVER, J.:- This is an appeal from an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution in limine.

2. The facts of the case are as shortly stated.

3. The appellant joined the Jat College, Rohtak for the Three Years Degree Course (B.Sc.) after passing the Higher Secondary Examination. In April 1970 he appeared in Part-I examination of that Degree Course. His Roll No. was 11743. The result of the examination was declared on 3rd July, 1970 but his result was withheld. On being required the appellant appeared before the Registrar of the Punjab University on 10th August, 1970 to answer a Questionnaire. On 7th October, 1970, the Standing Committee of the University gave him a hearing and put certain questions to him. On 17th November, 1970, the University was asked by the appellant to supply copies of certain documents. These documents were supplied including the order of the Standing Committee by which the appellant was disqualified from sitting in any examination for two years. On 24th November, 1970, a petition was filed by the appellant under Article 226of the Constitution challenging the order of the Standing Committee. That petition was dismissed in limine by the High Court on the 1st December, 1970.

4. Now what appears to have happened is that the Sub-Examiner who examined the answer books of the appellant as also of Roll No. 11750 made a report to the following effect:-

"Roll No. 11750 appears to have copied Q. 1 (B) from Roll No. 11743. Detailed notes are given in the A/books at the proper places.

The Head-Examiner also made a report forwarding the above remarks to the University and saying that he had actually gone through the answer books and was of the opinion that the remarks made by the Sub-Examiner were correct. The matter was referred to the Subject Expert, Dr. V. S. Bhatia, Lecturer, Department of Physics, Punjab University for this independent opinion. He made the following report:

"I again agree with the allegations of the sub-examiner that Roll No. 11750 has copied from Roll. No. 11743 (or both have copied from the same source). Roll No. 11750 is a very weak student (as one can see from his performance in the rest of paper) and has been unable to give correct solution of Question 1 (a). But still he tackles the Question No. 1 (b) in an almost satisfactory way. He puts a wrong value in a sum of three numbers but still gets the same result of addition as in the A/book of roll No. 11743. The result of division of 12.0984 by 2 has been wrongly given as 6.01306 sin both cases. Again both of them wrongly state that escape velocity is 10.3 km. Instead of saying 10.3 km/sec. This it is clear that both have copied from the same source.

5. In the Questionnaire which the appellant was called upon to reply relevant questions were put to him to which he gave answers. It was pointed out by the appellant that he and the student bearing Roll No. 11750 were sitting in different rows and the seat of the other candidate was not parallel to his seat but he was sitting behind one or two boys. He further stated that he was busy in answering the question paper and he did not know whether the other candidate had copied from his answer book or not. He denied having given any help to Roll No. 11750 or to have taken any help from him. According to him, be answered the question "with my own knowledge. . He expressed a desire to be heard in person by the Standing Committee but stated that he did not want to produce any witness or other evidence in his defence. The Standing Committee also put to him certain question. He stated that he had done Question No. 1 (b) in the Physics Paper independently and he could not explain how the mistakes were common in both the answer books. He was specifically asked if there was any common incriminating ship which passed between him and the other candidate to serve as a common source for copying and he replied that there was no such common