Bombay High Court
Yadav Tukaram Bhopi vs San Gadgebaba Amravati ... on 7 March, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Judgment wp3769.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 3769 OF 2016.
Yadav Tukaram Bhopi,
Aged about 25 years, occ - Nil,
resident of plot no.10, New
Colony, Dastur Nagar,
Amravati. ....PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. Sant Gadgebaba Amravati University,
through its Registrar, Amravati.
2. Assistant Registrar (Conf),
Sant Gadgebaba Amravati University,
Amravati.
3. Vice Chancellor/Chairman,
Board of Examinations, Sant Gadgebaba
Amravati University, Amravati.
4. G.H. Raisoni College of Engineering,
through its Principal, Anjangaon (Bari)
Road, Amravati. ....RESPONDENTS
.
-----------------------------------
Mr. C.S. Kaptan, Senior Advocate with
Mrs. S.W. Deshpande, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. N.S. Bade, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2017 00:52:22 :::
Judgment wp3769.16
2
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : MARCH 07, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT. (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J)
Heard Shri C.S. Kaptan, learned Senior Counsel with Mrs. S.W.
Deshpande, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Shri N.S. Bade, learned
Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. None appears for respondent No.4. By
consent of learned counsel for the parties, Writ Petition is taken up for final
disposal by issuing Rule, making the same returnable forthwith.
2. We have perused the proceedings which appear in the impugned
order dated 19.01.2016. Petitioner aged about 25 years is claimed to have
indulged in use of unfair means in 7th Semister Examination. The charge is
though he secured '0' marks in B.E. 7th Semister (Electronics and Power),
Electrical Engineering subject in Winter 2014 examination, he got the marks
increased to 56.
3. Submission of learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
Judgment wp3769.16
petitioner is that petitioner was called once and inquiry was made whether
he has increased the marks. Petitioner does not accept it. Thereafter, it
appears that one Professor Jawedekar was also examined by the Committee
and that Professor Jawedekar disclosed that he did not give 56 marks to
petitioner. On the basis of this material inference that petitioner has
indulged in use of unfair means has been drawn and he has been
disqualified from appearing in 10 examinations commencing from
September, 2014 onwards.
4. He also points out that initially proceedings were conducted on
07.03.2015 and thereafter till receipt of the impugned order there was no
development. In the meanwhile 8th Semister examination was held and
petitioner was permitted to appear in it.
5. After receipt of the impugned order, petitioner sought its review.
That review has been rejected on 27.06.2016.
6. Shri Bade, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents
has taken us through reply filed on record to oppose prayer for amendment
and also through the reply filed to oppose the petition. Our attention is
drawn to copy of recommendation of the Committee which is filed as
Judgment wp3769.16
Annexure-R5. On the strength of said recommendation, the impugned order
has been passed on 19.01.2016.
7. Perusal of Annexure-R5 does not show that petitioner and
Professor Jawedekar came face to face before the committee. The
Committee no where records that answer paper or office
recommendation/procedure followed in respect of that answer paper was
pointed out to the petitioner and he was contrasted with it. The Committee
does not mention that the examiner Professor A.U. Jawedekar deposed in
presence of petitioner or petitioner was permitted to cross examine him.
From report of Committee it appears that Shri Jawedekar had given '0'
marks to all answers.
8. In this situation, it is apparent that principles of natural justice
have not been adhered to in the matter. Petitioner was not shown the
answer paper and he was also not permitted to hear evidence or statement
of Shri Jawedekar.
9. We therefore, quash and set aside the impugned order dated
19.01.2016 and direct the respondent no.1 University to give opportunity to
petitioner within a period of four weeks. The petitioner is directed to
Judgment wp3769.16
contact respondent no.2 for said purpose on 16.03.2017 and to abide by its
instructions in the matter.
10. Writ Petition is thus partly allowed. Rule is made absolute in the
aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
