Satish Kumar Singh vs Delhi University
2011 Latest Caselaw 5690 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+            W.P.(C) 8287/2011 and CMs 18732-33/2011

                                                        Decided on 24.11.2011


IN THE MATTER OF
SATISH KUMAR SINGH                                            ..... Petitioner
                            Through:   Mr. R.R. Jangu, Advocate

                       versus

DELHI UNIVERSITY                                        .....    Respondent
                            Through:   Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Advocate


CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI


HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for

quashing of the memorandum dated 23.09.2011 issued by the

Examination Branch of the respondent/University and for issuance of

direction to the respondent to allow the petitioner to appear in the up-

coming exams of the final year.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who is a student

of the LLB course being run at the Campus Law Centre of the

respondent/University for the years 2009-12, appeared for his IV

semester annual examination for the academic year 2010-11 on

21.07.2011. Counsel for the petitioner states that out of the six papers

that the petitioner appeared for, he was declared as having passed in

three papers, namely, LB-401, LB-402 and LB-4038. On 26.07.2011, the

petitioner took admission for the V semester. Thereafter, the petitioner

was issued a notice to show cause dated 04.08.2011 by the respondent,

on the basis of the report of the Superintendent of the Examination

Centre to the effect that unauthorized handwritten material was

recovered from his possession while giving the examination in the paper

LB-4035 of LLB IV term held on 21.05.2011. It is an admitted case that

the petitioner gave a reply to the aforesaid show cause notice and he was

granted a personal hearing by the respondent.

3. After considering all the documents on record including the

submissions made by the petitioner before the Examination Disciplinary

Committee, the matter was placed before the Executive Council of the

respondent/University and the said Council decided that for the use of

unfair means, the petitioner be awarded punishment under Clause B of

the guidelines circulated to him with the admission ticket, which stipulates

cancellation of the entire examination. The aforesaid decision was

communicated to the petitioner vide memorandum dated 23.09.2011.

While informing the petitioner that the entire examination (in all the

papers and subjects) taken by him under Roll No.67075 issued to him for

the examination stood cancelled, he was informed that he would be

eligible to be admitted to the said examination afresh as and when the

same is held subsequently. Aggrieved by the aforesaid memorandum,

the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that though the enquiry

was pending, the results of the petitioner for the fourth Semester were

declared on the notice board of the Campus Law Centre-I and hence, any

subsequent action on the part of the respondent/University, directing

cancellation of the entire examination of the petitioner is arbitrary. It is

further stated that as per Ordinance X-A, which deals with Disorderly

Conduct and Use of Unfair Means in Examination, "the use of dishonest or

unfair means" implies carrying into the examination room, any book,

paper, notes or other material whatsoever likely to be used directly or

indirectly by the candidate in connection with the examination, whereas in

the present case, the petitioner did not carry any such material in the

examination hall. He further states that sub clause 13A. of Ordinance X-A

cannot be construed as a mandate to cancel the examination of the

petitioner after his results have been declared. It is lastly stated that the

petitioner having already taken the admission for the final year and

having submitted his admission fee, cannot be called upon now to take

his examination afresh for the course.

5. Counsel for the respondent/University, who appears on advance

copy, states that the present petition is misconceived inasmuch as clause

B of the guidelines circulated to the petitioner alongwith the admission

ticket clearly stipulates that in the event of adoption of unfair

means/indulgence in disorderly conduct, the candidate would be awarded

punishment of cancellation of his entire examination, which fact was well

within the knowledge of the petitioner and despite the same, he indulged

in using unauthorized handwritten material found scribbled on his admit

card. It is further stated that Ordinance X-A of the University and the

guidelines circulated to the petitioner mandate that in such circumstance,

the examination of such a candidate would stand cancelled and upon an

enquiry, if punishment is imposed on him after a hearing, he would not be

entitled to take that examination.

6. This Court has heard the counsels for the parties and perused the

documents placed on record.

7. It is not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

unauthorized handwritten material was recovered from the petitioner's

possession, which was scribbled by him by a pencil on his admit card.

The ostensible explanation offered by the petitioner for the aforesaid

material found from his possession is that before entering the admission

hall, the petitioner forgot to erase the citations of 2-3 cases from his

admit card. However, it is pertinent to note that the citations found

scribbled on the admit card of the petitioner related to the question

paper, for which the petitioner had sat on 21.05.2011 and the same is so

noted by the Superintendent of the Examination Centre, who has

observed in the show cause notice that the material recovered from the

petitioner was to be used by him in answering question No.1(e) set in the

question paper on the date of the incident.

8. A perusal of the aforesaid show cause notice further reveals

that in para 2 thereof, the petitioner admitted to his guilt, which is being

sought to be explained in the writ petition by stating that the Invigilator

and the Flying Officer of the respondent/University pressurized him to

admit his guilt and further, that they changed the answer sheet of the

petitioner. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the

respondent/University having declared the result of IV semester, is barred

from cancelling the said result, is devoid of merits inasmuch as any such

inadvertent action on the part of the respondent/University cannot entitle

the petitioner to claim any vested right in his favour in the light of

sub-clause 13A of Ordinance X-A, which is reproduced hereinbelow for

ready reference:-

"13A. A candidate against whom an enquiry is pending about his allegedly having resorted to the use of dishonest or unfair means or disorderly conduct in the examination or against whom action is initiated under the provisions of preceding clause shall, if he takes or has taken any subsequent examination, be deemed to have been only provisionally admitted to that subsequent examination. The examination will stand cancelled and his result thereof would not be declared if on account of the punishment imposed on him as a result of the said enquiry or action, he would not have been entitled to take that examination but for his provisional admission thereto."

9. Similarly, the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that he

was not found to have carried into the examination hall any book, paper

notes or other material, is untenable in the light of the fact that even as

per the petitioner himself, he had scribbled some citations of certain

judgments on his admit card found in his possession which related to the

question paper which he was to answer on the relevant date, thus

attracting the provision of Clause I (d) (iii) of Ordinance X-A, which is

reproduced hereinbelow:

` "1. For the purposes of this Ordinance-

       (a) to (c)      xxx

       (d)     The use of dishonest or unfair means in the
               examination includes:-

       (i) to (ii)     xxx

(iii) carrying into the examination room any book, paper, notes, or other material whatsoever likely to be used directly or indirectly by the candidate in connection with the examination.

........... "

10. It is apparent that the petitioner, instead of studying hard for his

examination, tried to choose the easy way out by resorting to unfair

means to pass his examination. This grave conduct of the petitioner

ought not to be treated lightly and a severe penalty must be imposed

upon him as a deterrent to others who may contemplate committing any

such acts in the future. The action taken by the respondent/University in

such circumstances is justified and cannot be faulted. The predicament in

which the petitioner finds himself in, is his own making. Having indulged

in such a disorderly conduct, it is inevitable that the petitioner suffers the

consequences of his irresponsible behaviour.

11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does

not find any illegality, arbitrariness or perversity in the impugned

memorandum dated 23.09.2011, for interference in judicial review. The

present petition is therefore dismissed in limine being devoid of merits.

                                                            HIMA KOHLI,J
       NOVEMBER        24, 2011
       rkb