P. A. CHOUDHARY, J.

( 1 ) THE writ petitioner was a student, who appeared for the First B. A. , and Second B. A. , examination of Sri Venkateswara University in May, 1980. On the ground that he committed malpractices in the examination he was served by the University with a show cause notice. This was on 3-9-80. These charges of malpractices mainly relate to smuggling from outside of the examination hall an additional written answer sheet and insertion of the same in the answer book. In support of that charge, the show cause notice mentioned that this extra sheet contained a peculiar physical feature of being folded four times and bearing hand-writing which was markedly different from the handwriting in the original answer book. The show cause notice alleged that the quality of the answer found on the pages of the extra sheet was wholly different from and much superior to the quality of the answer in the original sheet. This show cause notice also alleged that Question No. 2 which had been answered in the original answer book was found answered once again in the additional answer sheet without the original answer being scored off. Basing upon this the University drew the inference of commission of malpractices by the petitioner. The petitioner was, therefore, called upon to explain and also show cause as to why he should not be debarred from appearing for the University Examinations and prosecuting his studies. To that show cause notice the petitioner gave a reply denying that he had inserted any additional sheet. While admitting that there was a difference in the handwriting in the main answer book and in the additional sheet the petitioner explained that the main answer book was written in haste, whereas the additional sheet was written in leisure coolly recollecting the essays he got by heart. That he came to the examination hall late and therefore worrying himself started writing in haste was the reason which the petitioner assigned in explanation for the differences in handwriting. The boy also said that as he came late to the examination hall he did not have the time to strike off the answer to question No. 2 which he had already written in the original answer book. It is significant that the petitioner did not deny the four-folds of the additional answer paper. On receipt of this explanation, the Syndicate considered the matter and communicated the following order:--"it is hereby notified that the results of the following candidates who are found guilty of resorting to unfairness at the University Examinations held during May/ June, 1980 are cancelled and they are further debarred from appearing at the University Examinations as noted against their names".

( 2 ) IT is argued by Mr. Panduranga Rao for the petitioner that there was no direct evidence to prove that the petitioner was guilty of any malpractices and the circumstantial evidence in this case was not conclusive and that in any case the punishment was excessive. He also argued that the University did not consider the explanation of the petitioner and that vitiated the order of the University. Each one of these submissions appear to me to deserve rejection. The fact that there was no direct evidence in this case was, in my opinion of no significance at all. Many a man was convicted of many a serious crime merely on circumstantial evidence. The question therefore is whether there is circumstantial evidence enough to hold the petitioner guilty of commission of malpractices. In this case, the University based its opinion upon the fact that the additional answer paper was folded four times and that there was a difference in the handwriting between the original answer sheet and the additional sheet and the quality of additional answer was superior to the original answer and the second question was answered twice over. The explanation given by the student that he came late and that he was in a worried state hardly fits into the framework of his innocence. If he were so

Click Here to Read the rest of this document