University should take decision in the matter.

JUDGMENT :- This is an appeal filed under Cl. 15 of the Letters Patent against the Judgment of Veeraswami, J. issuing a writ of certiorari quashing a resolution of the Syndicate of the University of Madras which debarred the respondent from appearing at its examinations for a short period The respondent was a student of Thiagaraja College of Engineering, one of the institutions affiliated to the Madras University. He appeared as a candidate for the Second B. E. degree examination (integrated course) held by the University in September 1961. On 12-9-1961 the second paper in physics was given to him for answer at the examination hall. The answer books which he completed and delivered to the chief superintendent present at the examination hall, consisted of the main and three additional books. But two of the latter bore evidence of their having been prepared outside and brought into the examination hall, the candidate having included the same with the rest of the answer books. The Chief Superintendent duly reported the matter to the authorities of the University, referring in his communication to three features as suggesting that the two additional books could not have been written at the examination hall but outside, but surreptitiously introduced into the answer books. This, if true, will undoubtedly be a serious malpractice at the examination.

2. Under the Statutes and Regulations of the University, the Syndicate is vested with authority to exercise control over its examinations, to invalidate examinations held either generally or with reference to a particular candidate and to rusticate its students for enforcing discipline or by way of punishment. Matters of the kind now in question are initially dealt with by a Committee, known as "Syndicate Committee on Discipline and Welfare of Students". Sri S.J. Savarirayan convener of the Committee, on receiving the complaint aforesaid first appears to have thought that the reasons given for entertaining the suspicion against the respondent were not very convincing : but at the same time he felt that the matter was one for consideration by the committee the Committee in due course called for an explanation from the candidate in regard to the suspicious features in his answer books. The respondent denied that he acted in contravention of the rules, or that he was guilty of any malpractice. The committee after considering his explanation came to the conclusion that the respondent was guilty of introducing the answer books brought from outside with those written up at the examination hall. This is clear from the following endorsement made by them on the letter of the Chief Superintendent.

"The explanation of the candidate is unacceptable. Examination may be cancelled and the candidate debarred from the next two (rule 5) examinations"

In the minutes of the Committee : we find :

"Read letter D/-12-09-1961 from the Chief Superintendent, University Examinations. Thiagaraja College of Engineering, Madurai, forwarding the answer paper of candidate with register number 358 in physics II second B. E. (integrated) suspected case of malpractice And also the explanation of the candidate. Resolved that it be a recommendation to the syndicate that the examination taken by the candidate be cancelled, that he be debarred from appearing for the next two examinations held by the University, and that the Candidate be not permitted to undergo any course of study in this University during this period."

The matter was placed before the meeting of the Syndicate held on 9-1-1962. It resolved that the respondent should be debarred from appearing for the next two examinations. The question in the present case is whether in so doing the Syndicate of the University had come to its conclusion on the guilt of the respondent or whether it merely proceeded to resolve on the punishment without considering the merits. As the entire basis for the latter theory has been rested on the entry in the minutes book of the m