SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1969 Supreme(MP) 12

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
A. P. Sen and G. P. Singh, JJ.
SURENDRA KUMAR PATEL - Appellant
Versus
UNIVERSITY OF JABALPUR - Respondents
Misc. Petn. 166 Of 1968
Decided On : 01/23/1969

Advocates Appeared:
B.Awasthy, B.K.Tankha

Headnote:(1) University Laws-Jabalpur University Act, 1956-Ss. 25 & 33-Ordinance No. 75-action against a candidate for committing malpractice at an examination-Executive Council-functions in quasi judicial manner-opportunity to be heard-should be given-what is reasonable opportunity-divergence of views noticed.

       The Executive Council of a University, though an administrative body, functions quasi-judicially when it is asked to consider the question of mal practice committed by a candidate at an examination held by the University. When an examinee has used unfair means or has committed fraud or is guilty of moral offence or indiscipline the principles of natural justice require that the delinquent examinee should not be condemned unheard. AIR 1962 SC 1110 relied on. AIR 1953 Cal. 212 & AIR 1952 Cal. 594 followed. AIR 1966 SC 875 referred to. Case law discussed. Divergence of views in 1961 JLJ 913 and 1965 JLJ 912 noticed.

       (Paras 6 to 9)

       Where a misconduct is discovered in the examination hall and not when it is detected in the checking of the answer book, if the candidate was asked to give an explanation and instead of doing so left the examination hall no further opportunity need be given AIR 1952 Cal. 549 followed. AIR 1957 Bom. 246 not followed.

       (Para 11)

       But there is no invariable standard of the reasonableness of an enquiry. The rules of natural justice must vary with varying circumstances and the question whether the person concerned, had a reasonable opportunity must depend on the facts of each case. The type of opportunity which the petitioner had in the present case may not suffice in all circumstance

       (Para 12)

       (2) University Laws-Jabalpur University Act, 1956-S. 33-Ordiance 75-Article 3-power of debarring an examinee for future years-can be exercised in respect of the same examination candidate found guilty in an examination for degree of Bachelor of Arts-cannot be debarred for examination for Diploma in Teaching examination.

       Where the Executive Council found an examinee guilty of using unfair means in an examination for the degree of Bachelor of Arts held in the year 1967 and debarred him from appearing in the examination for Diploma in Teaching examinations for the years 1968 and 1969.

       Held: Article 3 of Ordinance No.75 empowers the Executive Council to debar the delinquent candidate from appearing at the examination and not any other examination. The action of the University was without jurisdiction.

       (Para 13)

SEN, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner Surendra Kumar Patel applies under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution, for the grant of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing Order no. 6 passed by the Registrar, Jabalpur University, dated 15th April 1968, debarring him from all examinations of the Jabalpur University for the years 1968 and 1969, including that of Diploma in Teaching, and for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the University authorities to permit him to appear at that examination to be held in or about March 1969.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts are these. The petitioner, who is a teacher in the Primary school at Mouza Khudawal in Tahsil Sihora, was admitted on 2nd August 1966 into the Prantiya Shikshan Mahavidyalaya, Jabalpur as a trainee candidate for the diploma in Teaching course. While he was pursuing that course of studies, he applied to the University for permission to appear 'as a teacher candidate' at the final examination for the degree of Bachelor of Arts (T. D. C.), which was to be held in March 1967, but his application was not granted, and he, accordingly, filed miscellaneous Petition No. 130 of 1967, Surendra Kumar Patel v. University of jabalpur against the University of Jabalpur, for an appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution. During the pendency of those proceedings, an ad interim writ was issued by this Court, directing the University authorities to admit the petitioner to the Bachelor of Arts (T. D. C.) Examination held in March 1967, subject to the condition that his result would not be declared until the disposal of the petition. In that petition this Court held on 11-9-1967 that the University authorities were justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner for permission to appear at the Final examination for the degree of bachelor of Arts held in March 1967, on the ground that on his admission to the prantiya Shikshan Mahavidyalaya as a student, he ceased to be a teacher and was, therefore, not eligible to appear in that examination 'as a teacher in a recognised institution'. Eventually, with the disposal of that petition, the result of the petitioner was withheld and his examination was cancelled by the University authorities. Nevertheless, the petitioner continued his studies in the Prantiya shikshan Mahavidyalaya, and duly filled in his application form for admission as a regular student at the Diploma in Teaching Examination which was to be held from 15th April 1968, but when he approached the authorities on the day prior, he was informed that his Admission Card would not be issued because he had been debarred by the University from appearing at any of its examinations for a period of three years, on a charge of having used unfair means at the Final examination for the degree of Bachelor of Arts (T. D. C.) held in March 1967. The petitioner immediately presented an application in writing to the Registrar of the University, making a request to grant him a provisional Admission Card but the authorities abstained from taking a decision, and the petitioner filed Miscellaneous Petition no. 154 of 1968, Surendra Kumar Patel v. The University of Jabalpur for an appropriate direction under Article 226 of the Constitution. During the pendency of that petition, the petitioner was, however, served with the impugned Order No. 6 dated 15th April 1968, and as a result he withdrew that petition with leave to file a fresh petition for challenging the validity of that order. ( 3 ) THE University and its Registrar have in their return asserted that the petitioner was caught red-handed while copying during the Final Bachelor of Arts (T. D. C.)Examination, 1967, in General English, Paper II, held on 23rd March 1967. The report of the Invigilator who caught him using unfair means was that:

"two leaves torn out of a printed book were found on the desk of the examinee concealed under his answer book. He was using the leaves for writing his answers. The examinee refu


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top