Defective charge of malpractice against two persons.

As an outcome of the B.Sc. Degree Examination (New Regulation) held by the University of Madras in April 1962, two candidates one bearing Roll No. 282, named E.V. Kumar and another bearing Roll No. 283, named R. Mukundan were charged with malpractice while answering the paper on mathematics. It was reported to the Registrar of the University by the Additional Examiner for the paper, that he had reasons to suspect malpractice on the part of the aforesaid candidates, in answering their mathematics paper, because in the words of the Additional Examiner:

(1) Question 2(b): The answer of one candidate is the word for word reproduction of that of the other and such verbatim reproductions can rarely occur in answering problems of this type.

(2) Question 6(a): One answer is the exact reproduction of the other. In relations (4) and (5) occurring in the answers, number one is marked in the same fashion as follows: — (1)

(3) Question 10(ii) Mistakes of the same character occur in the answers in exactly the same places.

(4) Comparison of the answers to the following questions reveal also the same steps and the same mistakes committed by both the candidates.

On this report which is dated 4th May, 1962, the Registrar of the University of Madras, issued an official memorandum on 10th May, 1962, to both the candidates, containing identical charges of malpractice, couched in the following terms:

The Examiner in Mathematics..........has reported that he has reasons to suspect malpractice (word for word reproduction of answers of another candidate) in the answer book of candidate with Roll No. 282 with Roll No. 283 in Part III Group B Ancillary Mathematics Paper I. He is, therefore, asked to explain in writing within a week from the date of receipt of this communication, why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for the above malpractice.

The candidate Kumar in reply to the charge, denied it and stated that his seating position in the Examination Hall was such that he was completely separated from other candidates by a distance which would have made it impossible for him to commit any malpractice, and that further he was short-sighted. His standard in mathematices was quite good, and there was no need for him to resort to copying. Mukundan also denied the allegation, and stated that he did not permit anyone to copy his answer paper, nor was he aware of anyone having done such an illegal act.

The procedure of the University thereafter was to get the matter considered by a Disciplinary Committee of the Syndicate, and this Committee in a resolution found both the candidates guilty of the charge, and made a recommendation which the University Authorities accepted, that the result of the examination of the candidates should be cancelled, and that they should be debarred from sitting for the next two examinations held by the University.

Against the above order of the University of Madras (first respondent), the two candidates filed Writ Petitions Nos. 987 of 1962, and 1132 of 1962 in this Court, praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari, under Article 226 of the Constitution, or other appropriate writ, to quash the proceedings of the University. Veeraswami J., who heard the Writ Petition of Kumar, after observing that the charges in this case could have been more specific, instead of repeating the language used by the examiner in his report, came to the conclusion that the charge thus framed did not prejudice the candidate in his defence. He also found that the requirements of natural justice had been complied with, and that the candidate was given an adequate and reasonable opportunity of meeting the charge. The order of the University was confirmed and the writ petition was dismissed. Against this decision, Writ Appeal No. 123 of 1963, has been filed under the Letters Patent, and has come before us for decision. While hearing the Writ Appeal, we found that the subject-matter of Writ Petition No. 1132 of 1962, the petition fo