Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
V.Ramachander Goud - Appellant
Versus
Controller of Examinations, Osmania University, Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 03-05-02
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Student of Law College - Prohibited material writing on the pad - Mal-practice - Petitioner is a student of Law College studying 2nd Year - Five Year LL. B. course - While writing examination in Economics subject on sitting squad took away petitioner s answer book, writing pad and seized them and also prevented him from completing answers in Economics exam and did not allow him to write exam in subject history of Courts - It was alleged that some words were written on writing pad and thus petitioner had committed an objectable act - Seized items were examined by Mal-practices Committee and thereafter, a show cause notice dated was issued and served on and petitioner submitted his explanation dated - Petitioner also filed a detailed representation dated before Committee pleading innocence and that the answer-book and writing pad were not verified - Petitioner categorically submits that Mal-practices Committee did not verify his answer books and the writing pad to comply with the requirement of the said Regulatio - Writing pad was not at all examined clause 2 of Regulations under Order No. VII reads as follows mal-practiSce award of Maximum punishment matter relevant to the examination being written on any part of the body or on clothes worn, or in instruments, wrappings etc - Further, petitioner has averred that he has not committed any objectable act but the show cause notice does not state whether the writings on paid are relevant to the answers written in examination - A counter-affidavit is filed contending that the petitioner is booked in a mal-practice case when he was writing Economic paper with points connected with the subject on writing pad - Chief Superintendent report also confirmed same and on that basis, he was booked under mal-practice which the candidate has already confessed in his application dated - Script along with said report was sent to Controller of Examination for further action –Held, Supreme Court in Board of High School observed that effect of the decision of Committee may in an extreme case blast the career of a young student of life and in any case will put a serious stigma on the examinee concerned which may damage him in later life - Nature of misconduct which Committee has to find in such cases is of a serious nature for exampl impersonation commission of fraud, and perjury and Committee s decision in matters of such seriousness may even lead in some cases to the prosecution of the examinee in Courts - Rule does not make any distinction between bona fide or mala fide possession of the incriminating material - Reasoning, that candidate having not used the material in spite of opportunity available to her possession alone would not attract the provisions of the Rule is not borne out from plain language of the Rule fact that candidate took papers relevant to examination in paper concerned and was found to be in possession of same by the invigilator in the examination hall is sufficient to prove charge of using unfair means by her in examination under the Rule - In view of above decisions and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case answer script should have been compared with words written on writing pad and without such verification and comparison and non-furnishing of report of Chief Superintendent and also not affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, vitiates the impugned action - Impugned order in my considered view is bad in law and accordingly it is set aside - Petition allowed
( 1 ) THE petitioner is a student of Pendekanti Law College. Himayatnagar Hyderabad, studying 2nd Year - Five Year LL. B. course. While writing the examination in the Economics subject on 11-10-2001, the sitting squad took away the petitioner s answer book, writing pad and seized them and also prevented him from completing the answers in Economics exam and did not allow him to write the exam in the subject history of Courts . It was alleged that some words were written on the writing pad and thus the petitioner had committed an objectable act. The seized items were examined by the Mal-practices Committee and thereafter, a show cause notice dated 12-12-2001 was issued and served on 21-12-2001 and the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 24-12-2001. The petitioner also filed a detailed representation dated 29-12-2001 before the Committee pleading innocence and that the answer-book and writing pad were not verified. While so, the first respondent passed order dated 8-1-2001 stating that the petitioner while writing Economics-II Paper IV, was having prohibited material writing on the pad and therefore the provisions of Regulations under Ordinance VII Conduct of Examination Part V Clause 2 are attracted and accordingly, his examination result was cancelled and he was debarred from appearing in the subsequent exam. However, he was allowed to write the supplementary examination to be held in the year 2002.
( 2 ) THE petitioner categorically submits that the Mal-practices Committee did not verify his answer books and the writing pad to comply with the requirement of the said Regulation. The writing pad was not at all examined. The clause 2 of the Regulations under Order No. VII reads as follows :"mal-PRACTICE award of Maximum punishment matter relevant to the examination being written on any part of the body or on the clothes worn, or in the instruments, wrappings etc. Shall be debarred from appearing at the subsequent papers of the examinations apart from cancelling the result of the examinations in which he/she had indulged in Mal-practice. "
( 3 ) THE said Regulation contemplates that the Committee is duty bound to judge and examine the answer-scripts with reference to the words written on the writing pad and it is only after such verification of the matter relevant to examination, punishment is contemplated. In the instant case, the show cause notice dated 12-12-2001 was issued alleging that the petitioner had committed objectable act and the nature of the act committed is that some points are written on the writing pad. Further, the petitioner has averred that he has not committed any objectable act but the show cause notice does not state whether the writings on the paid are relevant to the answers written in the examination.
( 4 ) A counter-affidavit is filed contending that the petitioner is booked in a mal-practice case when he was writing the Economic paper with the points connected with the subject on the writing pad. The Chief Superintendent s report also confirmed the same and on that basis, he was booked under mal-practice which the candidate has already confessed in his application dated 24-12-2001. The answer script along with the said report was sent to the Controller of Examination for further action. The Mal-practices Committee met on 29-12-2001 and the Committee basing on the confession that there were some points on the writing pad which he had written for study but did not wipe out, passed the impugned order. The Committee comprising of academicians decided the punishment as per mal-practices norms of Osmania University. It is also stated that after careful verification of the Chief Superintendent s report and explanation submitted by the petitioner in writing the impugned order was passed and accordingly the examination result of the petitioner has been cancelled and as such, the declaration of the result does not arise.
( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended tha
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
