Sapna Kalia vs University Of Delhi And Ors.
1992 Latest Caselaw 492 Del

JUDGMENT

Mahinder Narain, J.

(1) The petitioner Mrs. Sapna Kalia, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner's case is that the photo copies of the test booklet for the LL.B. entrance examination for the year 1992-93, containing the questions and answer sheet were freely being sold and solved, much prior to the commencement of the entrance examination on 02.08.1992. In support she has filed not only the photocopies of the question paper and the answer sheet but also the news item published in the Statesman dated 03.08.1992 along with a photo copy of the question paper. Similarly, the petitioner has also filed report published in The Indian Express, and the Navbharat Times dated 03.08.1992.

(2) By this writ petition, the petitioner, inter alia, has sought declaration that the LL.B. entrance examination, which was held on 02.08.1992, be declared irregular, and hence cancelled. She has also prayed that re-examination be ordered for the purposes of admission into LL.B. 1st year course of the Delhi University, a judicial enquiry be held and declaration of the result be suspended till the decision of the writ petition. .

(3) Along with the writ petition, the petitioner has filed a Civil Miscellaneous petition, being C.M. No. 5208 of 1992 praying that the University of Delhi be ordered to cancel the LL.B. Entrance Examination, held on 02.08.1992 and to suspend its result till the disposal of the writ petition.

(4) After hearing the petitioner's Counsel on 10.08.1992, we issued notice of C.M. 5208 of 1992 to the respondents, and directed "stay of declaration of results of LL.B. Entrance Examination till the next date". On 12.08.1992, the respondent, University of Delhi, put in appearance through Counsel, and sought time to file reply to the petition. Reply to the petition has been filed on that date. We directed that the case be listed on 26.08.1992, and that interim orders to continue.

(5) The matter could not be taken on 26.08.1992, for the reason that lawyers were abstaining from work on account of assault on Mr. J. P. Singh, Additional District Judge, and we renotified the matter on 28.08.1992, and directed the interim orders to continue.

(6) Reply to the petition was filed by the University of Delhi on 20.08.1992. Rejoinder was directed to be filed on 28.08.1992. It was filed in Court on 31.8.1992. Thereafter we have heard Counsel for the University once prior to lunch, and thereafter as documents were required to be produced by the University, and the Counsel said that he would produce them in the afternoon session of the Court, we again heard the parties at 3.30 p.m. He also produced the documents before us.

(7) Broadly the case of the University in its reply is that there has been E.O leakage of the question papers of the LL.B. Entrance Examination; that all question and answer papers in the form of book-lets are accounted for and are with the University. However, it is contended that one booklet containing questions and answer paper was snatched away at about 4.20 p.m. from the Arts Faculty Examination Hall but the same did not "in any way affect the examination" as no body was allowed to enter the examination halls after 3.20 p.m.

(8) We will deal first with the contention that all the papers in the series A, B and C are lying safely with the University. We may mention that in the petition it is asserted by the petitioner that the booklet containing the questions and answering sheet, bearing Sr. No. 0385, had been leaked out from the secured confines of the University, and photo copies of that were freely available to anybody, who was willing to pay the price. The petitioner has filed, as annexure "E", a photo copy of this booklet containing 150 questions and, during arguments, the learned Counsel for the University had fairly stated before us while handing over the original booklets in the series A, B and C, each bearing No. 0385, that annexure "E" to the petition is the photo copy of the original booklet No. 0385 in series A.

(9) It was asserted by the University that there was no leakage and that no person could take out of the Examination Halls either the question paper or the answer sheet and that, all the booklets in all the three series namely A, B and C are accounted for and are lying in safe custody with the University. If that be so, how has the petitioner produced the photo copies of the question paper and the answer sheet (Annexure "E") ?, and how could a newspaper print a photo copy of the question paper on the very next day of the examination ? We repeatedly put this question to the learned Counsel for the University but there was no cogent answer forthcoming.

(10) It was contended that at about 4.20 P.M. a booklet was snatched away from the Law Faculty Examination Hall. This argument was advanced to explain away the presence of photo copies of the question paper and answer sheet produced by the petitioner (Annexure "E"), and so also the publication of the paper in the Statesman of August 3, 1992. We feel no hesitation in rejection it for the reasons some of which are as follows : 1.The story of snatching away of the booklet does not inspire confidence as : (a) It is not stated who snatched away the booklet. (b) It is not stated what was the number of that booklet and in which series. (e) No report was lodged with the police. None has been lodged since then. (d) Although admittedly there was elaborate police arrangements, no effort was made to apprehend the culprit or to contact the police officials present at site. (e) Above all, and we feel this is the most important,, the photo copy is produced by the petitioner as Annexure "E" being No. 9385 of series A, and the original of the same being admittedly with the University (The learned Counsel for the University showed us the original), it cannot be taken that what had been snatched away was the original booklet No. 0385 of series A. It is not .the case of the University that the original booklet No. 0385 of series A was first snatched away, then photocopied and later merely handed over to the University authorities.

(11) It is for the reasons noted above and for yet another reason which we shall spell out presently that we feel-strongly that a.primafacie case is made out for the grant of the relief sought. The other reason is the unequivocal assertion of the University that all the booklets are lying safely with the University. If that is so, how does it fit in with the story that a booklet was snatched and taken away ?

(12) The University of Delhi has not given any cogent or convincing explanation as to how a photo copy of the booklet containing questions and answer sheet, which was in the safe custody of the University is actually in the Court record. It appears, prima fade, that the story made by the University of Delhi in its reply, does not bear scrutiny, and the same is incorrect, and that what the petitioner states, is prima fade correct.

(13) We may also notice here that in the original question paper No. 0385 in series A which was shown to us by the learned Counsel for the University, there were marks and writings in ink. However, its photo copy placed on the record by the petitioner as Annexure E, there is no such mark or -writing which goes to show that the photocopy was made before the examination and this lends further support to the case of leakage of question paper set up by the petitioner.

(14) In the aforesaid situation, the interest of justice would require that the result of the LL.B. Entrance Examination for the year 1992-93benot declared till the matter is finally disposed of.

(15) We must note at this point that after we had heard the parties and had retired to chamber, we had sent for the Counsel for the parties. We were only able to locate Mr. A. Mariaputham, the instructing Counsel for the University of Delhi. We enquired from him whether he would require the matter to be finally disposed of at this stage, or would he want us to only deal with the matter of stay at this stage. He took time to take instructions from his leading Counsel, and after obtaining instructions, he informed us that the University of Delhi would prefer to have the orders only regarding the stay matter.

(16) C.M. 5208 of 1992 stands disposed of accordingly.