The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for stringent rules and adherence to prevent cheating and use of unfair means by examinees.

Hima Kohli, J.- (Oral)

1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner impugning the order dated 03.03.2011 passed by respondent No.2/Controller of Examinations, Jamia Millia Islamia University, whereby the Examination Committee constituted by respondent No.1/University decided to penalize the petitioner for indulging in use of unfair means while writing the Examination - MBA (Evening), Part-II, Paper - MBA-201 held on 18.01.2011, by cancelling all the papers of the semester/year in which the petitioner had appeared and thus declining to promote him to the next academic year.

2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. It is the case of the petitioner that he had completed B.Tech. (Electrical) from respondent No.1/University and being in employment, he took admission in MBA (Evening) three year course in the year 2009. Between January-February 2011, the petitioner was to appear for the second year MBA (Evening) examination. On 18.01.2011, the petitioner appeared for the paper - MBA-201 (Part-II) examination in respect of the subject, Financial Management, which was the first paper of the said semester/year. As per the petitioner, during the course of the examination, the flying squad paid a surprise visit to room No.320, where the petitioner was answering his examination and on discovering some documents in his pocket, the same were confiscated. The stand of the petitioner is that the documents in question pertained to the office where he was employed, i.e., M/s ETA Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and that the said documents were in no manner related to the examination in which he was appearing on the relevant date. It is averred in the petition that the checking staff and the invigilator on duty examined the contents of the documents found in possession of the petitioner and thereafter left the issue with the invigilator on duty. However, the invigilator on duty took away the answer sheet of the petitioner, subject to the decision of the competent authority.

3. Although the aforesaid examination in question, in which the petitioner had appeared, took place on 18.01.2011, respondent No.1/University did not initiate any action on the same date. Instead, necessary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the next day i.e., on 19.01.2011, when a notice was issued to the petitioner charging him of indulging in use of unfair means by bringing written material in the examination hall and calling upon him to appear before the Examination Committee on 18.02.2011 to show cause as to why further action be not taken against him in accordance with the Ordinance of respondent No.1/University. Upon receiving the aforesaid notice dated 19.01.2011, the petitioner appeared before the Examination Committee on 18.02.2011 and furnished his explanation to the effect that the documents found in his possession were work related official documents left inadvertently in his pocket and they were not relevant for taking the examination in question. Thereafter, the petitioner received the impugned order dated 03.03.2011 passed by respondent No.2/Controller of Examinations stating inter alia that his case had been considered in the light of the material on record, the statement as tendered by the petitioner before the Examination Committee, and after due deliberations, it was deemed appropriate to cancel all the papers of the semester/year in which the petitioner had appeared and to refuse him promotion to the next academic year. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 03.03.2011, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

4. Vide order dated 04.05.2011, while taking notice of the stand of the petitioner that he had inadvertently carried in his pocket some official documents belonging to his office, which were discovered during checking by the concerned Invigilator while the petitioner was appearing in the examination in question and further, in view of the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had in his

Click Here to Read the rest of this document