Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Bose
DIPA PAL - Appellant
Versus
UNIVERSITY OF CALCUTTA - Respondent
Matter 224 Of 1951
Decided On : FEBRUARY 18, 1952
UNIVERSITY OF CALCUTTA - Examination - Cancellation of examination - Malpractice - Principles of natural justice - Duty to act judicially - Certiorari - Mandamus.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a student of Murlidhar Girls College, appeared for the Bachelor of Arts examination of the University of Calcutta in 1951. She was reported against for adopting unfair means at the examination. The Malpractices Committee, appointed by the Syndicate, considered the case and decided to cancel the petitioner's examination. The Syndicate confirmed the decision. The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order of cancellation and for a direction upon the respondent University to forbear from giving effect to that order.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Board of Examiners and the Syndicate, in considering the cases of breaches of discipline, must act reasonably and with due care and caution. The court further held that the procedure adopted by the University authorities in arriving at their conclusions was not the correct one and that the order of cancellation of the petitioner's examination could not stand.
Issues: 1. Whether the Board of Examiners and the Syndicate acted judicially in considering the case of the petitioner? 2. Whether the principles of natural justice were observed in the proceedings against the petitioner? 3. Whether the order of cancellation of the petitioner's examination was valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Board of Examiners and the Syndicate were exercising quasi-judicial functions in considering the case of the petitioner. The court relied on the following factors: a. The Board of Examiners was empowered to consider all cases of breaches of discipline arising in connection with the examination. b. The Board of Examiners had the power to apportion the penalty which could properly be inflicted upon the delinquents. c. The decision of the Board of Examiners could have serious and far-reaching consequences on the whole career of the candidate concerned. 2. The court held that the principles of natural justice were not observed in the proceedings against the petitioner. The court relied on the following factors: a. The petitioner was not given any notice to offer any explanation of her conduct. b. The Principal of the Murlidhar College, who represented the petitioner in the inquiry, did not have any authority to do so. 3. The court held that the order of cancellation of the petitioner's examination was not valid. The court relied on the following factors: a. The procedure adopted by the University authorities in arriving at their conclusions was not the correct one. b. The order of cancellation of the examination was in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed. The order of cancellation of the petitioner's examination was quashed and the respondent University was directed to forbear from giving effect to the said order. The respondent was to reconsider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law.
( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for an appropriate writ for quashing of an order of cancellation of the petitioner's Bachelor of Arts examination passed by the Vice Chancellor and Syndicate of the University of Calcutta and for direction upon the respondent University to forbear from giving effect to that order. The petitioner was a student of the Murlidhar Girls College at 4, Hindusthan Road, Calcutta. She appeared at the examination for the degree of Bachelor of Arts of the University of Calcutta in 1951 as a non-collegiate student and her roll number in the said examination was Cal. F. N. 368 and her seat for the examination was allotted at the said Murlidhar College premises. The case of the petitioner is that she was satisfied with her answers to the questions on which she was examined in the said examination and had reason to believe that she would come out successful, but when the results of the examination were published the petitioner was surprised to find that her name was not included in the list of the successful candidates that was published by the respondent University. The petitioner thereupon made enquiry from the Principal of the Murlidhar College and she came to know that she was reported against to the University Authorities for having adopted unfair means at the said examination. It is alleged that the petitioner does not remember any incident during the examination that might justify anybody to suspect malpractice on her part and neither any Invigilator nor any other person in charge of the examination detected the adoption of any unfair means on the part of the petitioner during the examination. It appears that by a letter dated the 7th June 1951 the Examiner in Philosophy paper No. 1 reported to the Chairman of the Board of Examination in philosophy that he was convinced that two groups of candidates had indulged in foul play and among them was the petitioner. The Chairman of the Board of Examiners forwarded the said letter to the Controller of Examinations on the 20th July 1951 and in forwarding the letter the said Chairman expressed the view that his suspicion in the matter was also very strong. The Examination Board held a meeting on the 23rd July 1951 and appointed by a resolution a sub-committee to consider the cases of candidates who had been reported to have adopted unfair means at the B. A. and B. Sc. examinations 1951. This resolution was confirmed by the Syndicate on the 28th July 1951. The members of the said sub-committee were Dr. Srikumar Banerjee, Principal A. K. Sen and Principal P. K. Guha. Dr. Banerjee and Mr. Sen were members of the Board of Examiners but Mr. Guha was not a member of the Examination Board. It appears that this sub-committee is known as the Malpractices Committee and it enquires into all kinds of malpractices committed by candidates. at the examination hall and it considers all cases reported to it and after due deliberation decides whether there has in fact been any malpractice in any particular case. On 10-8-1951 the Board of Examiners considered and accepted by a resolution the statement of results of the B. A. examination as prepared by the tabulators. On 11-8-1951 the Syndicate confirmed the said resolution and directed the publication of the results and the results were accordingly published on the same date. But the results of the candidates reported against were withheld from publication. On the 20-8-1951 the Principal of the Murlidhar College addressed a letter to the Controller of Examinations in which he pointed out that he had known the petitioner and another candidate whose roll number was Cal. F. 677 for some years and that the past conduct and career of the petitioner was such that he could never think that the petitioner could deliberately deviate from the path of rectitude and it was unbelievable that she would adopt any unfair means at the examination. By a letter dated the 31st August 1951 the said Principal
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
