IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ADMISSION MATTER Reserved on : November 16, 2007 Date of decision : November 21st, 2007 W.P.(C) 8066/2007 & CMs No.15896/2007 & 15225/2007 VIJAY AMRIT RAJ... Petitioner Through Mr. Binay Kumar with Mr. Chandra Prakash, Advocates versus UNIVERSITY OF DELHI THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR Through Mr. Anurag Mathur, Advocate... Respondent Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat: 1.The petitioner in these writ proceedings claims a direction for quashing an order dated 3.10.2007 by which the respondent had cancelled his examination on allegations of using unfair means in the second semester examination of the Masters of Human Resources and Organization Development Course (hereinafter the course ). 2.The petitioner, pursuant to his success in All India Entrance Examination to the course, conducted by the University joined the batch 2006-07. He was admitted to the course which is divided into four semesters on 10.7.2006. It is not disputed that he successfully completed the first semester and obtained 59.14% marks in the examinations held in November, 2006. The petitioner appeared in the second semester in the examination. The first paper i.e. No.624 concerned Business Environment; it was held on 20.4.2007. 3.It is averred that on the fateful date the Invigilator noticed a small piece of paper near the petitioner's desk. The petitioner alleges in relation to that incident as follows :
The Invigilator picked up the said picked up the said piece of paper and all of sudden took the answer sheet of the petitioner without even taking any signature on that piece of paper or matching the handwriting with that of petitioner and it was only after repeated requests, few minutes later, the petitioner was given a new Answer Sheet and he Answered all 5 questions successfully within the time limit Despite of the fact that the petitioner was taken by surprise on his answer sheet being forcibly taken away in the midst of the exam and lot of time had already elapsed in convincing the respondent authority before they issued the new answer sheet. 4.The petitioner avers that thereafter he appeared in the other six papers and answered all the questions. The results of the examination were declared on 24.7.2007. However, the University authorities withheld his result with the mark esult later, if necessary 5.It is averred and so contended on behalf of the petitioner by Mr. Vinay Kumar that on 16.9.2007 he received a telephonic call from a non teaching staff member of the concerned department asking him to appear before the Examination Branch on the same day. The petitioner complied and requested that he should be given opportunity to explain his case regarding non-assessment by the Invigilator about alleged use of unfair means during the examination. Learned counsel claims that without even affording an appropriate notice or granting reasonable hearing, the respondents straightway issued the impugned cancellation letter on 3.10.2007. The said letter reads as follows : Case No. : 29 Ref. No. Exam./V/UFM/2439 Roll No.705336 Delhi, the 3/8/07 MEMORANDUM It has already been communicated through correspondence on the subject, that as per report received from the Superintendent of the Examination Centre where Vijay Amrit Raj has appeared at the MHROD-(Sem Examination, the said candidate has resorted to the use of unfairmeans/disorderly conduct during the aforesaid examination. The said candidate had been issued a detailed show-cause notice on the basis of the report of the Superintendent, the report of the expert who had gone through the material recovered from his/her possession as also the statement, if given, at the time of the incident. After having considered all documents on record including the personal hearing (if asked and granted by the examination disciplinary committee) the Executive Council
of the University of Delhi having been satisfied to the findings of the Examination Disciplinary Committee has decided that for the use of unfairness/disorderly conduct, the said candidate be awarded punishment under clause B of the guidelines circulated to him along with the admission ticket. The said clause reads as follows : Clause B CANCELLATION OF THE ENTIRE EXAMINATION In consequence of the above decision of the Executive Council, the entire examination (in all paper and subjects) taken by the said candidate under Roll No. 705336 issued to him for the examination has been cancelled. He would be eligible to be admitted to this examination afresh as and when held subseqently. The said candidate is advised to contact the Principal of the college last attended by him/her or the Head of the institution to which he/she was enrolled. Sd/- Deputy Controller of Exams. 6.Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was not at all fault and the inferences drawn against him about his using unfair means in the examination were purely conjectural. Counsel contended that even if the petitioner had kept a piece of paper before the commencement of an examination it was with the intention of revising the subject and he never meant to adopt any unfair means. Counsel contended that had he really adopted unfair means, the University authorities would never have permitted him to appear in all the papers and would have been prevented him from attempting the paper with a fresh answer sheet. 7.Learned counsel urged that the penalty imposed against the petitioner is based on no evidence and is unsupportable in law. Counsel also relied upon the judgment of this court in Neha Jain Vs. University of Delhi, 1997 2002 DLT 239 and contended that the University authorities acted arbitrarily. 8.This court had issued notice on 2.11.2007 and listed the matter on 11.12.2007. An application was filed being CM No.1586/2007 for appropriate directions to permit the petitioner to appear in the forthcoming examinations. Counsel for the respondent was present on advance notice and he was permitted to produce the records. Later the matter was heard finally. 9.It was urged by Mr. Mathur by placing reliance on the original records, that the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 6.9.2007 which alleged that he had resorted to use unfair means and that one written page was recovered from his possession. Learned counsel relied upon a copy of the said notice. It was contended that the petitioner even replied to the notice. The said reply was a part of the record
of the University where he apologized for the unwanted situation created by him. Learned counsel submitted that the copy material was admittedly found on the petitioner's desk as is apparent in his reply. However, he denied awareness about it. 10.Learned counsel for the University submitted that the petitioner was thereafter heard on 23.9.2007 by members of the Disciplinary Committee. By the order they have formed the opinion that the petitioner indulged in unfairness in the examination and violated Ordinance X-A-II governing the University. In the light of these the impugned order was issued. 11.Learned counsel submitted that even a bare comparison of the piece of paper with the written material recovered from the petitioner with the contents of the first answer sheet that was later withdrawn from him would reveal that he copied the contents of such slip. However, a look at the second blank answer sheet furnished to him later upon which he wrote his answers, show wide variation in regard to the structure and content as well. These showed that the action of the University was justified. 12.I have considered the materials on record. The petitioner in the averments has nowhere mentioned about the issuance of the show cause notice and replied as well as the hearing given to him by the Examination Disciplinary Committee. The entire petition is premised on completely arbitrariness conducted by the University. To that extent the records speaks against him. 13.As regards the petitioner's allegation about unfairness or arbitrariness of the respondent University is concerned, the reply given by him to the University indicate that the paper was recovered at the relevant time. He however denies awareness of it and also denies that he used it. Now these are issues of fact that cannot be properly gone into under Article 226 of the Constitution. Besides, the entire gamut of facts was considered by two professorial teaching members of the Committee, who unanimously recommended action against him. They considered the petitioner's explanation, as well as the report of an expert who was referred the material recovered from the candidate and the answer sheets. The expert in his report concluded that the material had been used in relation to question No.1; that portion has been marked in the answer sheet that was produced before the court. The offending piece of paper is also part of the record. A bare comparison of the two documents would show that the close similarity in the answers if not complete identity. In these circumstances it is difficult to accept the petitioner's contention about the arbitrariness on the part of the University authorities
14.As regards the harsh or oppressive nature of the punishment, the guidelines prescribing punishment for use of unfairness states that where the candidate is found having in which is possession papers books or notes etc. on a part of his body or table or desk which could be useful or of his assistance in answering the papers he is taking, the entire examination can be cancelled. Even if the candidate has not admitted to take any assistance himself or given any other assistance to candidate. On the other hand where the candidate is found to have use such material, not only is the examination cancelled but he is debarred from appearing in any examination in the university for one year. 15.The above discussion would show that though the University authorities felt that materials existed about use of unfair means, yet they chose to await a lesser punishment of cancelling the examination. There is no discrimination or arbitrariness in this regard. On the other hand if the university had not taken action despite recovering such objectionable material, it could legitimately have been expose to the charge of not applying the norms uniformly. 16.In view of the above discussion and having carefully considered the original records produced I am of the opinion that the respondent's action cannot be characterized as unfair or arbitrary. 17.The writ petition and pending applications are accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. Sd/- (S.RAVINDRA BHAT) JUDGE