Honble CHAUHAN, J.–The instant petition has been filed challenging the order dated 19.12.96 contained in Annex.2 to this petition by which the result of the examination for B.Com. Part.I 1996 has been cancelled and the petitioner has further been debarred from appearing in examinations for the years 1997 and 1998.

(2). Petitioner was a student of B.Com. Part I and appeared in the examinations held in May, 1996 from the Examination Centre in PND College, Gajsinghpur, as a regular student. In the said examination, petitioner was allotted the Roll No. 56862. After the examinations were over, the result of B.Com. Part I was declared on 19.7.96 and the same was published in the newspapers, wherein it was shown that the result of the petitioner had been withheld on the ground of using unfair means. Respondent-Unniversity served a notice dt. 11.9.96 contained in Annex.1. wherein the petitioner was asked to appear before the Unfair Means Standing Commi- ttee constituted by the respondent University on 30.9.96. Petitioner appeared and was confronted with the answer books, revealing that she had used the unfair means in the examination. Her explanation was however not accepted by the Expert Committee and the Committee made a recommendation for imposing the punishment of cancelling the result of the petitioner for the examinations for the year 1996 and to debar her to appear in the examinations to be held in 1997 and 1998. In pursuance of the same, the competent authority passed the impugned order dt. 19.12.96 contained in Annex.2.

(3). Heard S/Shri S.L. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, and N.M. Lodha, learned counsel for the respondents.

(4). This court has earlier made it clear that the petition shall be disposed of finally and so called for the original record of the enquiry committee. In pursuance of the said order, the original record was produced by Shri Lodha before the court.

(5). The averments raised by Shri S.L. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, are three fold. Firstly, the conduct of the enquiry and the action taken by the res- pondents does not fall within the ambit of provisions of Ordinance 152 of the Hand Book of the University of Rajasthan Part II Vol.II which reads as under:

Unfair means:

....................................

(iv) Giving (or receiving) assistance in answering the question papers to (from) any other candidate/person in the examination hall or outside/during the examination hours.

....................................

(x) Using or attempting to use any other unfairmeans during the examination or in connection with the examination.

(6). Secondly, the petitioner had not been accorded opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order.Thus, the impugned order is vitiated for non-compliance of the principles of natural justice. Petitioner was not given the copies of the material on the basis of which allegation of using unfair means had been made; and thirdly, the competent authorities had not passed the impugned order and, therefore, it is without any jurisdiction and, thus, illegal.

(7). So far as the third contention is concerned, it has no force. As per the procedure laid down in the University, cases of unfair means are required to be considered by the Committee constituted for dealing the matters relating to unfair means used in the examination and on the recommendations of the Committee, a punishment is inflicted. In the present case also, the Committee considered the matter and made recommendation and on the basis of that, Annex.2 was passed. In such circumstances, the order contained in Annex.2 does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. Similarly first contention is also preposterous as the case of using unfair means definitely falls within the ambit of provisions of said Ordinance 152. Only second submission requires consideration. In fact, the original record produced by respondents reveals that the petitioner and her real brother Nitin K. Jain had appeared in the examination and he

Click Here to Read the rest of this document