1995 Supreme(All) 225

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R. B. MEHROTRA
BASANT KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 21761 Of 1994
Decided On : 02/16/1995

The Examination Committee constituted under the State University Act and the Statutes and Ordinances made by University can be termed as a tribunal and the order passed by the Examination Committee can be said to have been made or purported to be made in exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any U. P. Act with respect to any matter enumerated in the State List or Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.

Headnote:

SPECIAL APPEAL - TRIBUNAL - UNIVERSITY EXAMINATION COMMITTEE - JURISDICTION - NON-SPEAKING ORDER - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - WORDS AND PHRASES - PURPORTED TRIBUNAL - SCOPE OF REVIEW.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Basant Kumar, challenged the letter issued to him from the University of Allahabad informing him that he had been awarded the punishment of cancellation of his result of B. A. II Examination of 1992 and also debarment from the corresponding (and any other) subsequent examination of 1993 for attempting/using unfair means at the B. A. II Examination 1992.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Examination Committee constituted under the State University Act and the Statutes and Ordinances made by University can be termed as a tribunal and the order passed by the Examination Committee can be said to have been made or purported to be made in exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any U. P. Act with respect to any matter enumerated in the State List or Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.

Issues: 1. Whether under the Rule of the Court Special Appeal lie, against an order of Single Judge of this Court in a matter where the Examination Committee contemplated by the Statutes of University on recommendation of the Sub-Committee referred in sub-section (3) of S. 29 cancelling the examination of an examinee and debarring an examinee from appearing in future examinations for a period of one year, if in the opinion of the Committee such examinee was guilty of using unfair means at any examination conducted by the University? 2. Whether the order dated 11-7-1994 dismissing the writ petition in limine was a non-speaking order? 3. Whether principles enunciated under O. 41, R. 24 of C. P. C. are also attracted for deciding the Special Appeal under the Rules of the Court. 4. What is the import of the Supreme Courts decisions referred to and relied upon by the Division Bench in its judgment and in case the Division Bench in particular case is of the opinion that the matter requires a more detailed reasoned order by a Single Judge of the Court is it obligatory on the Division Bench to indicate the point of law involved for consideration in the matter for guidance of the Single Judge for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with the direction of the Division Bench?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The word "tribunal" used in the Rules has to embrace in itself all statutory authorities who are conferred with a jurisdiction to decide a particular issue for which the body is constituted. 2. The Examination Committee is a body constituted for taking decision in regard to the matter of conducting an examination including the power to deal with a disputed case regarding use of unfair means by examinees and also to exercise power to debar an examinee from future examination. 3. The word "purported" has been defined in New Lexicon Websters Dictionary of the English Language "to have meaning or purpose to be meant" "to appear". 4. The provisions of the Rule excluding the judgment of the learned single Judge from the jurisdiction of the special appeal in respect of the matters whether either a tribunal or Court or a statutory arbitrator has given any judgment, order or award or any authority having decided a matter which can be purported to be tribunal or statutory arbitrator in exercise of jurisdiction under any of the State Act or Central Act or in purported exercise of such jurisdiction were excluded from the preview of the special appeal against a judgment of learned single Judge. 5. The order passed by the Examinations Committee of the University was an order of an authority under Statute which has all the tenets of the tribunal and as such, the order should be held to have been passed by an authority purported to be a tribunal and the order itself was in purported exercise of tribunal.

Final Decision: The Court held that the Special Appeal against the order of the Single Judge was not maintainable and dismissed the same.