Judgment Mahendra Bhushan, J.-This writ petition is directed against the order of the respondent cancelling the examination of the petitioner held in May-June, 1979 for B. Sc. (Hons) (Physics) Part II, on the ground that the petitioner used unfair means in the examination.

2. The petitioner was a student of B. Sc. (Hons) (Physics) Part II (Three Years scheme) and was pursuing this course of study in Maharaja College, Jaipur. He appeared in B. Se. (Hons) (Physics) Part II examination in May-June, 1979 with Roll No. 161. On June 18, 1979 the petitioner had to appear in Chemistry Subsidiary Paper HI from 3 to 6 P. M. While he was appearing in the examination, at about 5.35 P. M. the Flying Squad took search of the examinees including the petitioner, who were suspected of using unfair means, and sufficient material relating to Chemistry-Subsidiary Paper III was found in the pocket of the petitioner inside the coat which was buttoned up, The Invigilator and the Superintendent examination referred the matter of the petitioner of using unfair means in the examination to the Committee appointed by the Syndicate, and the Committee after examining the case recommended infliction of punishment of cancellation of the present examination, i.e., the examination held in May-June 1979 of the petitioner.

.3. Thepetitioner represented to the Vice-Chancellor on November 22, 1979 for reconsideration of the decision cancelling his examination and for review of his case. He was informed about the decision of the Vice-Chancellor by letter of the Assistant Registrar (Examination-Ill) dated January 22, 1980. He again made a representation to the Vice-Chancellor on February 25, 1980, and he was asked vide letter dated March 22, 198

.of the Registrar, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur to appear before the Standing Committee appointed to consider the cases of unfair means on March 26, 1980 at 3.30 P M. in the University Office. He appeared and the decision is still awaited.

4. The only grievance of the petitioner is that there has been violation of the principles of national justice, in as much as the Standing Committee appointed by the Syndicate to examine the cases of the candidates, who are alleged to have re-sorted to unfair means, did not grant an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause and the procedure prescribed in Ordinance 152 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) to deal with such matters has nut been followed. A case of alleged discriminatory treatment to the petitioner is also made out on the ground that the cases of other candidates, who were not better placed than the petitioner, unit, who too were found using unfair means in the examination have been dealt with differently. The respondent was called upon to show cause as to why the writ petition be not admitted, and a reply has been filed in which the allegation of violation of the principles of natural justice in case of the petitioner has been denied. A case has been set up that the petitioner was found using unfair means at the time of examination in the subject “Chemistry-Subsidiary Paper-Ill, and he admitted to have been in possession of the material, which had relevance to the examination concerned. Because he admitted it was not necessary under the Ordinance to grant any opportunity of hearing and all through the University has interpreted the provisions of the Ordinance in such a manner that a Committee appointed by the Syndicate to examine the cases of candidates, who were suspected of using unfair means only gives a right of hearing to such a candidate, who denies to have used unfair means. An opportunity was granted to the petitioner at the time when he was found using unfair means in the examination and it was not necessary at the subsequent stage for the Committee to again grant an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause. In my opinion, looking to the urgency of the matter, the writ petition itself should and can be disposed of at this stage.

5. The Ordinance defin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document