B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner in the instant writ petition prays for issuance of an appropriate writ particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the first respondent in No. 581/be/exams MP/98 dt. 23-11-1998 as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the first respondent to publish the result of the petitioner enabling him to pursue the further course of B. E.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is a first year engineering student. The first year examinations of B. E. were started in the last week of August, 1998. On 4-9-1998 the petitioner was writing the Physics examination at M. J. College of Engineering, panjagutta. It is his case that before entering the calculations on the answer sheet he was doing the rough work on his palm of left hand and also on the question paper in a normal manner. There was no attempt by him to copy from any material and he did not possess any prohibited material in his possession. The petitioner s answer sheet was taken by the Invigilator and his hall ticket was also seized. Consequently he was not allowed to write the paper on 7-9-1998. However, under the directions of this Court in W. P. No. 25358/1998 the petitioner is permitted to write the remaining examination. The petitioner is studying the second year class in the second respondent-College.

( 3 ) WHILE the matter stood thus, the first respondent issued show-cause notice on 6-11-1998 asking the petitioner to show-cause why action shall not be taken for having committed malpractice of copying from the matter written on palms and on question paper. The petitioner promptly submitted his explanation on 13-11-1998 disputing the allegations levelled against him. However, the first respondent through the letter dated 23-11-1998 communicated its decision imposing punishment of debarring the petitioner from appearing at the subsequent papers of the first year examination apart from cancelling the result of the examination on the ground that the petitioner was involved in malpractice case. It is that order which is questioned in this writ petition.

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner Sri v. Srinivas submits that the impugned proceedings suffer from total non-application of mind by the authority concerned. It is submitted that the respondents have failed to take into consideration the explanation submitted by the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not violated any of the regulations framed under Ordinance No. 7 relating to conduct of examination by the university.

( 5 ) IN the counter-affidavit, it is inter alia stated that the reply to the show-cause submitted by the petitioner was considered along with the report of the Chief superintendent and only after appreciating the entire material on record and facts and circumstances of the case, the five-member committee comprising of four Heads of departments and the Chairman of Board of studies gave a unanimous finding that the petitioner indulged in malpractice and imposed a punishment. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner was caught redhanded while copying the material written on the palm and the question paper.

( 6 ) THE impugned proceedings dated 23-11-1998 communicated to the petitioner is a cyclostyled one relating to altogether seven candidates. As against the name of the petitioner, it is written that "shall be debarred from appearing at the subsequent papers of the Exam, apart from cancelling the result of the examination in which he had indulged in malpractice. "

( 7 ) I have seen the complete record including the report and proceedings of the committee which is again in a cyclostyled form. In the column relating to finding of the committee, it is recorded that "the committee is convinced that the candidate indulged in malpractice which he agreed in the letter addressed" and as against the punishment awarded, it is written as "all papers be cancelled in the semester with hall Ticket No. 0598-646. "

( 8 ) THE proceeding its

Click Here to Read the rest of this document