SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(AP) 40

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J.
Ramala Jaswanth Reddy - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 28525, 28561, 28628, 29440 & 29538 of 2021
Decided On : 07-01-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Rosedar Sra.
For the Respondent: GP For Med Health And Family Welfare.

Point of Law: What is to be looked into under the power of judicial review is whether there was any procedural violation involved in the entire gamut of events.

Headnote:

Indian Penal code,1860 - Sections 417, 427, 120B - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 41A - A.P. Public Examinations (Prevention of Malpractices and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 – Section 8 and 10 - Examination – Malpractice - Petitioners are 1st year MBBS students studying in 5th respondent Medical College - During the 1st year MBBS main examination, they failed in certain subjects, particularly in Biochemistry - Petitioners’ case is that they appeared in supplementary examinations conducted in month and completed exams and during course of examination they were not booked for any malpractice being committed in examination hall and on the other hand after completing examination they returned home - Whether there are merits in the writ petition to allow.

Finding of the Court:

Petitioners cannot take an objection that they were not furnished documents relied upon by University - What is germane for consideration is whether a fair opportunity was given to petitioners to present their case or not - In this case admittedly University served Memos to them calling for their explanation and they submitted their written explanations - It must be stated that this Court cannot sit as an Appellate Authority to test veracity of the allegations leveled against petitioners and to test veracity of their explanation and consequential action taken against them - What is to be looked into under the power of judicial review is whether there was any procedural violation involved in entire gamut of events - In court considered view, there was no such procedural violation - When the entire admitted facts are taken into consideration, the petitioners were very much present in Flat and they also knew about contents of FIR and also mediator’s report, which are only replicated in Sub-Divisional Police Officer’s report - Petitioners owe explanation for their presence at scene of offence at relevant time independent of any documents - So, at the outset, the petitioners cannot clamor about violation of principles of natural justice or other procedural deviations - Court find no merits in writ petitions.

Result: Writ Petitions are dismissed.

ORDER :

In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners challenged the proceedings in Roc.No.2006/E1A/MBBS/MP/2021 dated 19.11.2021 of 3rd respondent imposing punishment to them for use of unfair means by disqualifying them for a period of three years including April 2021 from the whole examination.

2. The petitioners are the 1st year MBBS students studying in 5th respondent Medical College. During the 1st year MBBS main examination, they failed in certain subjects, particularly in Biochemistry. The petitioners’ case is that they appeared in supplementary examinations conducted in the month of April 2021 and completed the exams on 30.04.2021 and during the course of examination they were not booked for any malpractice being committed in the examination hall and on the other hand after completing the examination they returned home. Their further case is that on that evening at about 7.00 P.M., while the petitioners were at their respective residences, the police of IV Town Police Station, (Dargamitta PS), Nellore called them by phone to the residential Flat No.102 of Pooja Sathyadevam Apartment situated in Saraswathi Nagar, Nellore belonging to Sri Dr. Singamsetti Bhaskar, Assistant Superintendent working in 5th respondent College on the pretext of some enquiry. When the petitioners reached the said Apartment, they found one lady police officer viz., Nageswaramma was present along with her staff. She took the petitioners to different rooms of the flat and gave some empty answer sheets similar to the answer sheets of the University and asked them to write some text matters on some papers on the pretext of comparison of their hand writings for the purpose of some enquiry. The petitioners have innocently cooperated with the police officer and wrote some text relating to the subject of the Biochemistry Paper provided on the papers given by the police officer. Later the police have implicated them in Cr.No.112/2021 of Dargamitta Police Station for the offences under Sections 417, 427, 120B IPC and Sections 8 & 10 of the A.P. Public Examinations (Prevention of Malpractices and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (for short, ‘the Act 25 of 1997’) on the allegation that the petitioners in order to get themselves passed in the Biochemistry subject, colluded with A1 and other accused and while the examination papers were under transit from Post Office to RMS, got them diverted to the residential flat of A1 and copied the answers on the original answer booklets where they left some empty white papers in the bunch of their answer booklets. The police filed charge sheet against them with all false and untenable allegations which was taken cognizance by the learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore and registered as C.C.No.5155/2021. On departmental side the matter was placed before the Malpractice Committee of the 2nd respondent University and after considering the material placed before it, the Committee found all the petitioners guilty of malpractice and made recommendations to the University and the 3rd respondent, who is the Vice-Chancellor of 2nd respondent University, passed the impugned proceedings disqualifying the petitioners for a period of three years including April 2021 from the whole examination. The petitioners’ case is that they are innocent and they were falsely implicated in the case without there being any plausible material against them. Their further case is that before issuing the impugned proceedings, principles of natural justice were not followed as the material relied upon by the Malpractice Committee as well as by the 3rd respondent such as the report of the Malpractice Committee etc. were not furnished to the petitioners so as to effectively present their case.

Hence, the writ petition.

3. The respondents 2 to 4 filed counter opposing the writ petition and contending thus:

(a) The petitioners have joined MBBS course in the Academic Year 2019-2020 in the 5th respondent College. The regular examinations for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top