1957 Supreme(Bom) 187

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Shah J.C. and Gokhale B.N. , JJ.
Appellants: Nanik Dharamdas Vazirani
Vs.
Respondent: Maharaja Sayajirao University, Baroda and Ors.
Special Civil Appln. No. 2559 of 1956
Decided On: 11.02.1957
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: K.H. Nagrani and V.G. Lala, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: M.P. Amin, Adv. General and H.R. Gokhale, Adv.

Headnote:

UNIVERSITY - Examination - Unfair means - Enquiry - Quasi-judicial - Notice to candidate - Necessity - Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda Act, 1949 (XVII of 1949), Ss. 3, 4, 5, 24, 31(v), 33, 47, Ordinance 278.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a student of the Intermediate College of the Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, appeared for the Intermediate Arts Examination in March/April 1956. The results were declared in May 1956, and the petitioner's result was kept in reserve. On 25-5-1956, the petitioner's father wrote to the Registrar of the University requesting grace marks for the petitioner. On 2-6-1956, the Registrar informed the petitioner's father that the petitioner was reported to have used unfair means at the examination. On 6-8-1956, the petitioner's father asked for a hearing before any action was taken against the petitioner. On 13-6-1956, the Registrar informed him that the decision of the University would be announced in due course. On 26-6-1956, the University published a notification stating that the petitioner and some other candidates were found guilty of having practised unfair means at the examination and their results were cancelled. The petitioner's father wrote to the Registrar requesting him to send the findings and grounds on which the decision of the University was arrived at and also the marks obtained by the petitioner in every subject. He also protested against the decision as "unjust and unfair" and contended that circulation of the notification meant reflection on the character" of the petitioner, who had been "condemned unheard though previously requested". On 30-6-1956, he addressed a letter to the Vice-Chancellor of the University stating that no definite charge was intimated to the petitioner and no explanation was asked for and that the decision of the Syndicate was arrived at ex parte and it was unjust. He requested the Vice-chancellor to "take fair attitude and prompt action". On 4-7-1956, the petitioner's father was informed that the cases of all the candidates reported to have used unfair means at the examination were "carefully gone through considering all aspects" and the Syndicate of the University had passed orders in the matter "after due deliberation". The Registrar also informed the petitioner's father that the question of supplying marks did not arise because under the same resolution the Syndicate had resolved to cancel the results of all those candidates. On 12.7-1956, the petitioner's father reiterated that the petitioner had become the victim of suspicion only and any punishment inflicted upon him without calling for his explanation could not legacy stand. He, therefore, asked the Registrar to inform him the full details as requested in his earlier letters. On 17-7-1956, the petitioners father addressed a letter to the Vice-Chancellor praying for justice and threatening that if justice was denied, he may have to take legal action. On 2-8-1956, one, Gidumal, Advocate, acting under instructions from the petitioner, addressed a letter to the Registrar calling upon him to move the Syndicate "to vacate its illegal order, dated 25-6-1956" and in default threatening legal action. In reply to that letter, the Registrar by his letter, dated 3-8-1956, informed the Advocate that in cases where the examiners made a report to them about the use of unfair means by any candidate, it was not considered necessary to ask for any explanation from the candidate concerned; and that the examiners appointed by the University were all responsible persons and their report was duly considered by the University. After some more correspondence this application was filed by the petitioner on 15-9-1956, for "necessary and appropriate writs celling for the record of the entire enquiry, the examiners reports and all the evidence and material upon which the findings of the said Committee were based as also the proceedings in connection therewith taken before the Syndicate culminating in the order.. dated 25-6-1956," and declaring that the order was ultra vires and to set it aside and for a further order directing the University and its officers to forbear from carrying out the impugned order and to treat the petitioners in the same way as if the order was never made and to declare the result of the ex-emination on the basis that the enquiry was never held.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the University authorities were acting as an administrative body in holding examinations and in seeking to punish misconduct of a candidate in the course of the examination and that it was not open to a candidate to challenge the authority of the University to declare him unsuccessful at the examination on the ground that he had failed to satisfy the examiners or that he had so misconducted himself in the course of the examination that on grounds of discipline he should be declared unsuccessful and be subjected to penalties prescribed by the Statute. The Court further held that the decision of the University authorities to declare a candidate unsuccessful, and to impose penalties is not open review by the courts unless it is shown to be arbitrary, capricious or mala fide.

Issues: Whether the University authorities are bound to give the candidate a hearing before holding him guilty of misconduct.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that a University before passing an order disqualifying a candidate at an examination for alleged misconduct is not bound to call for an explanation from him. The Court reasoned that if the University authorities are bound to call for an explanation and to give a hearing to an examinee having failed to give the petitioner a hearing, the order passed by the University is liable to be set aside. The Court further held that if the proceedings of the examining body for cancellation of the result of candidate are Quasi-judicial proceedings, the body must give the candidate a hearing before holding him guilty of misconduct. Again if the Regulations or the ordinances governing the examining body prescribe either expressly or by necessary implication that before action is taken against a candidate he must be given a hearing that procedure must be followed. But the University in holding examinations and in seeking to punish misconduct of a candidate in the course of the examination is in our judgment acting as an administrative body. A candidate when he presents himself as a candidate for a University examination agrees to submit himself to the decision of the authorities appointed for conducting the examination, it would introduce the greatest confusion if the Courts of law were entitled to interfere and declare a candidate successful when the authorities declare him to have failed. The evaluation of the quality and merit of the answers submitted by the candidate must of necessity be left to the, examining authorities to whose judgment the candidate has submitted himself, and it is not open to him to say that his answer papers should have been valued otherwise. Again if on materials before them the University authorises are satisfied that the answers given by the candidate to questions set at the examination are not his real answers but that he has been guilty of misconduct in answering the questions, it is difficult to hold that the civil Court will be competent to "enter upon an investigation and hold that the evidence before the University was insufficient to hold the misconduct proved.

Final Decision: Rule discharged with costs.