Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(AP) 208

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, JJ.
Kovi Rakesh, S/o Dr. K. Ramana Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Registrar and others - Respondents
W.A.Nos.123, 132, 147, 148, 149, 150, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156 and 198 of 2021
Decided On : 09-04-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. C. Raghu
For the Respondent: Mr. Guttapalem Vijaya Kumar

Point of Law: If a candidate is found in mala fide possession of any material as indicated in the Rules, which is relevant to the subject examination, he shall be disqualified from appearing in any of the University examination for one year including that in which the candidate is found guilty

Headnote:
Andhra Pradesh Public Examinations Act, 1997 - Sections 2 and 3 – Possession for land – Circumstantial evidence – Examination - Malpractice - Students were guilty for possessing forbidden material into examination hall and that the Vice Chancellor of University after taking into report of Chief Superintendent and Special Observer explanation of students and recommendations of Malpractice Committee –
Finding of the Court:
Appellant was a victim of circumstances - He behaved like a disciplined boy when he found some papers lying on the floor - He brought same to notice of Invigilator who in turn brought it to notice of Superintendent - Superintendent stated that squad member in spite of protest by student and invigilator insisted that student had committed malpractice and though initially he had refused to refer case to Malpractice Committee on being pressurized by squad member he had to ultimately refer case - Court had also taken note of submission of Government Pleader appearing for Board that if results of appellant were published he would have topped the list of successful candidates in entire State - Thus facts of entirely different from the facts of present batch of writ petitions - Though orders of punishment were set aside by the learned single Judge, when the petitioners prayed for permission to pay examination fee and to appear for year examinations scheduled to be commenced prayers of petitioners were rejected on ground that there was no specific direction in the orders passed by learned single Judge - In writ appeals preferred by writ petitioners on different dates various interim orders were passed the writ permitting petitioners to appear in said examination providing that result of such examination shall not be declared and same shall abide by outcome of appeals - It was also made clear that petitioners shall not be entitled to any equities - Since as of date there is no order imposing punishment for any misconduct we direct that result of examinations taken by petitioners pursuant to orders passed in appeals shall be declared - If pursuant to liberty granted by learned single Judge further proceedings are taken by University in light of directions contained in orders of learned single Judge and if it is established that writ petitioners had committed malpractice, University may pass appropriate orders imposing punishment in accordance with law –
Result: Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT :

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, J.

1. Heard Mr. C. Raghu and Mr. N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the writ petitioners. Also heard Mr. Guttapalem Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences (for short, ‘the University’).

2. In the appeals filed by the writ petitioners, Mr. Guttapalem Vijaya Kumar appears for the University and the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education appears for the State. In the appeals filed by the University, Mr. C. Raghu appears for the writ petitioner in W.A.No.132 of 2021 and Mr. N. Ashwani Kumar appears for the writ petitioners in W.A.Nos.147, 148, 149, 150 and 198 of 2021 and the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education appears for the State.

3. All these appeals were listed together and they were analogously heard. As the core issues raised in the appeals filed by the writ petitioners are same and so also the core issues raised in the appeals filed by the University, all these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.

4. It is also to be noted at this juncture that though separate judgments dated 17.02.2021 were delivered by the learned single Judge, the substratum of the judgments is one and the same.

5. The Special Observer appointed during 2nd MBBS theory examinations at Guntur Medical College, Guntur, reported that on 07.11.2020, Mogili Nagendra Babu, Bhavanam Kranthi Kalyan Reddy, Kamireddy Rishit, Kovi Rakesh, Nuthalapati Mohith Sai Umesh Chandra, Paladugu Mytreeya and Samanthapudi Lakshmi Tejaswi, students of Katuri Medical College, were found copying during Microbiology Paper-II examination in the examination hall with the help of using printed material and thus, were resorting to malpractice. A common Memo dated 12.11.2020 was issued by the Controller of Examinations of the University, asking the above students as to why their appearance from the examination should not be cancelled and why they should not be debarred from appearing for the examination and for prosecuting further studies for the misconduct and requiring them to submit their explanation to him within seven days from the date of receipt of Memo, making it clear that if the explanation of the candidates did not reach the office on or before the specified date, the cases will be disposed of on the basis of the material already available. A request was made to the Principal of Katuri Medical College to serve the Memo to the candidates and to obtain acknowledgement.

6. For the present, suffice it to say that explanations were submitted and thereafter, individual orders dated 24.11.2020 were communicated to the students by the Controller of Examinations stating that the Malpractice Committee of the University, which had met on 24.11.2020, after considering the Special Observer’s report, explanation of the students and the materials seized from them, came to the conclusion that the students were guilty for possessing forbidden material into the examination hall and that the Vice Chancellor of the University, after taking into the report of the Chief Superintendent and Special Observer, explanation of the students and the recommendations of the Malpractice Committee, had come to the conclusion that the ends of justice would be met by awarding punishment of disqualifying the students for a period of one year including November, 2020 examination, thereby imposing the said punishment.

7. Challenging the aforesaid orders, Kovi Rakesh, Bhavanam Kranthi Kalyan Reddy, Kamireddy Rishit, Nuthalapati Mohith Sai Umesh Chandra, Paladugu Mytreeya and Samanthapudi Lakshmi Tejaswi, approached this Court by filing separate writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which were registered as W.P.Nos.22670 of 2020, 23530 of 2020, 24326 of 2020, 23011 of 2020, 24325 of 2020 and 24328 of 2020, respectively.

8. It is not clear whether Mogili Nagendra Babu had approached this Cou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document