The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision to cancel an entire examination based on mass copying in one paper must be reasonable and in line with the findings of the relevant committees.

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.

1. W. P. (C) No. 7397 of 2009 and W. P..(C) Nos. 233 & 754 of 2010 involve the same question of law, arising from the same cause of action and, as such, they are being considered and decided by this common order.

2. The, indisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected by the Petitioners, are that the Petitioners appeared in the B. Com. final examination 2009 in centre No. 66 at Korba City College, Korba. It was found that there was a mass copying, in Income Tax paper held on 2-3-2009 in Respondent No. 2/Korba City College, Korba. Accordingly, by notification dated 22-6-2009 issued by the Registrar of the Respondent Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur, the Income Tax paper in B. Com. final examination held on 2-3-2009 was cancelled on the ground of mass copying. Thereafter, the Petitioners were allowed to appear in the supplementary examination, which took place on 22-8-2009 wherein the Petitioner appeared and were found passed as per result published in the web site of the Respondent University i.e. www.ggu.ac.in

3. In the meantime, the Unfair Means Committee (for short "UFM Committee") was constituted. The UFM Committee in its report dated 8-9-2009 found that there was a mass copying in Income Tax final year paper in Centre No. 66 i.e. Korba City College and it was recommended to cancel the entire examination.

4. The Executive Council (for short "EC") considered the recommendation of the UFM Committee in its meeting held on 25/26-9-2009 (Annexure- D/2), filed along with the application for taking additional submission and documents on record dated 21-6-2010, observed that the recommendation of the UFM Committee in respect of mass copying in B. Com-III examination, 2009 may be accepted and the result of the concerned paper may be cancelled. When the minutes of the EC meeting held on 25/26-9-2009 came up for confirmation on 14/15-2-2010, after a period of about 5 months, the earlier proceeding was approved with modification that B. Com.-III examination 2009 may be cancelled in its entirety. Consequently, thereupon the Examination Controller (Acting) by notification dated 7-12-2009 cancelled all the examinations of B. Com. Mains as well as supplementary examination, 2009, in the centre No. 66. Thus, these petitions.

5. Shri Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, submits that when it was found by the UFM Committee that there was a mass copying in Income Tax Paper in the main examination 2009, an action was taken by the Registrar of the Respondent University by notification dated 22-6-2009 and the Income Tax paper was cancelled. Thereafter, supplementary examination was directed to be held wherein the Petitioners appeared and were declared as successful. The Respondent authorities ought not to have taken a decision in the subsequent meeting held in the month of February, 2010 contrary to the earlier decision taken in the month of September, 2009 and cancelled the entire examination of B. Com. final as well as supplementary examination. The decision of the Respondent University is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory.

6. On the other hand, Shri Shrivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent University, submits that the final authority to consider the mass copying in examinations is the EC. The EC exercising its power under clause 23(f)(i) Part-V of Ordinance No. 6 on the basis of the UFM Committee took a decision to cancel the entire examination, which was accepted by the EC and accordingly the main and supplementary examinations were cancelled. There is no illegality or irregularity in the decision taken by the EC or thereafter by issuing the notification dated 7-12-2009.

7. On the question of change of decision in the EC meeting held in the month of February, 2010, Shri Shrivastava submits that the minutes of the earlier meeting could have amended when the same came up for confirmation subsequently. Thus, there is no error in the impugned notification issued by the Respondent