L ^ IN TI-'E HIGh' COURT OF JU&ICATURE Ch'HATFTS&ARH AT BIL.4SPUR W. P. NO^ 'J> -5 "2-/ 2Q05 Petitioner ,Y ^R. ^v '\w/ ^y /yy ^-yy Rajshekar Singh Chandel S/o Shri Jaleshwar Singh Chandel, Aged about 21 years, Student B.Sc Purt-II Chaitanya Science <& Arts Coiiege, Pamgarh R/o PoSt Office SariISF Via Akaltaro, Dist: J^njgir Champa-(C,&.) w ^>' Responden't's Versus 6uru Ghasi &as UniverSity Through theRegistrar Bilaspur, Dist; Biiaspur-(C.&.) The Principal Chaitanya Science & Arts Coiiege, Pamgarh, Dist; J'anjgir Champa-(C.£.) ^ VVRZT PfTITION UNDER .4RTTCLE 226 / 227 OF THE CONSTITb'TCQN OF rN&IA FOR ISSUANCE OF SUIT-ABLE VvRIT, WRITS, DIRECnON^ETC TO E50 JUSTICE IN THE MATTCR. t:^ [.& 11 Ri^ S8B s«a WHV -^A._-(P .-c.^ HIQH_50URTOFjuDiCATyREAT BILASPUK. eHHATTISQARH fflf p^fifi^n Mn.3^ nf ?S1HS yy f i t, a -s.f-a.s^ti t ivij'i.-siii'^/^a %?^ ju y i^ idr Rsjsheksr oingh Chsndet Versus Guru Ghasldas Universifry' and anoiher =OST FOR ORnPR OW 15'" MARCH 7005 Sdl- L.C. Bhadoo Judge -TJ-:, 9 H!QH COURT OF JUDICATURE ATBiLASPUR. CHHATTiSOARH Writ Petition No.352 of 2005 Rajshekar Singh Chandei - Versus - Guru Ghasidas Universit^ and another Present: - Mr. Ani! Singh Rajput, Advocate: Mr. Manindra Shrivasiava, Senior Advocats: with Mr. Amit Verma, Advocate Miss Sharmila Singhai, Advocate: Forihe Detitioner. For respondent No.1 For respondent No.2. RDER (Passedon15 1^/E-t-A-' !?,2005) L.C. BHADOO. J: - 1. By this wrlt petition under Articie 226/227 of the Constltusion of Sndia, the petitioner who is a student of B.Sc. Part-il of Chaitanya Sclence & Arts Coliege, Pamgarh, has questioned the iegaiity and propriety of the decision of ths respondenis to canc&i his resuit of the subject Zoology of B.Sc. Part-1 on the ground of masscopying. 2. Brief facta leading to filing of this writ petition are that the "etitioner took- admission in ihe year 2003 in B.Sc. Part-i in Chaitanya Science & Arts College, Pamgsrh, which is afflliated with Guru Grtasidas Unsversity, respondent No.1 herein. Thereafter, in the year 2004, examination of B.Sc. Part-i was conducied by respondent No.1 at Pamgarh Centre in the same colisge, ths petitloner appsared in that examination and resuit of tha sams was dectared on 20 July, 2004. The petitioner was deciared pass with 48.71% marks and mark sheet of the same was delivered to the petitioner on 4-8-2004. The petitloner took admission in B.Sc. Part-ll and pursuing his studies in B.Sc. Part-SI. Thsrsafter, the examination of B.-Sc. Part-S of the subjectZooiogy which was conducted on 10 May, 2004 was cancelled on the ground that thsre was mass copying at the Pamgarh Examination Cenfre i.e. Chaitanya Science & Arts College, Pamgarh. Thereafter, respondent No.1 conducted examination of Zoology paper in the same centre and most of the studenis appeared In the examination, but soms of Tw) Page 2 of 10 the students did not appear. Ail the students protested the cancei!ation of examlnatlon ofthe subject Zooiogy. 3. Further case of the peiitioner is that iooking to the future of the petrtloner and the students of B.Sc. Zoology, it is very important that proper Intimation shouid have been givsn to ail ^ha siudents by the Pamgarh Coiiege, but sroper intimation was not givsn bv th®Colieae as wetl as the University. Sinee the petitioner was aflowed to take admteaion in the second year B.3e- and the resuit of first year B.Sc. was aiready deciared, he was shocked after rtesring that the respondents had not accepted his examinaSion form for appearlng in B.Sc. Part-11 examlnation. He made a representation on 5- 1 -20Q5, but ihere was no rssponse on behaif of the respondeni Coiiege or Universifr^. Ths action of the respondents is arbitrary, improper and iilegai. Cancellatton of the examinatlon of B.Se. Part-i Zoology after jgsuance of the mark sheet to the petitioner is iliegal and arbiirary. Therefore, it has been prayed that the respondents be directsd to aliow the petitioner to appsar in B.Sc. Part-i! examination and quash ihs notlficatlon regarding canceilation offirsi year examinaiion ofZootogy paper. 4. Reiurn has been fiisd on behaif of respondent No.1 University in which it has bsen i-neniioned that examinations of various courses of higher education of the session 2003-2004 vvere heid at differant examination csntres in the coiieges withln the jurisdiction of respoRdsnt No.1 during the period from !1.4arcSi, 2004 to iVisy, 2004. Chaitanya Vigyan Avam Ka!a Mahavidyalaya, Pamgarh, a private colSege, was also made one of the centres of examinaiion from whers the students of ihat coilegs in dirferent ciassss appsared for sxamination of diffsrsni subjects as per ihe scheduie of examination circulated by respondent No.1. The examination of B.Sc. Part-i of Zooiogy 1st paper was conducted on 10-5-2004 at the said examination center. Answer sheets of the said subject were sent to the examiner and the examiner while eheckins the answer sheets found soms pecuisar features common in aii the answer sheets of cenier No.91 i.e. Chaitanya Vigyan Avam Kaia Mahavidyaiaya, Pamgarh, pertaining to B.Sc. Part-1 Zooiogy 1st paper and it was found ihat the answers written in ail the answer sheets were verbatim same. !t was aiso found that even the words of beginning of the answers, change of paragraphs and ena' of paragraphs were a!so verbstim same, ti was aiso found that trte mlstakes in the answer sheets were found verbatim same. in addition to this. several features showing that ai! ihe answers were common ana were written in thesame manner coniaining the same ffiistake, omitting same things v/ers found. Pa&cSoflO Maving received such a report of the examiner made on 19-9-2004, serious v!ew was taken by the Reglstrar o* the University anci oplnlQn of anotrter senior Professor was obtained. Tha othsr examlner aiso examined ths matter and found that mosi of the answer sheets show simiiarity and submltted his report on 28-7-2004. Then ihs matter was placed before the Unfair Means Committee of the Universlty and the Commlttee after meticulous examination of the entire material, answer sheets and reoort of the examiners, had decided to issue show cause notice to the Superintendent of Examination, and Principal of the CoiSege. CGpy of the show cause notice dated 13-9-2004 is Annexure R-1. Replies of the Principai and oiher invigiiators were received which are Annexures R-2 10 R-4. Thereafter, the Unfair Means Committee in iis mseiing heid on 24-9- 2004 resolved to cancel the examination of Dartieular eenter and sccordlngly, maa'e recommendations, Copy of the minuies is Annexure R- 5. Thereafter, recommendattons of the Unfair Means Committee wers placed before the Execirtive Council in its meeting dated 14-10-2004 and as psr resoiution No.'iO the Executive Council accepied ihe recommendations and direcisd for action according to ths recommendaiions. There upon, notification dated 28-10-2004 was issued to the effect that examlnation of B.Sc. Part-1 Zoology 1s1 paper held atCentre No.91 was cancelled. Copy of the notlfication is Annexure R-S. On 11-11-2004, rsvlsed resu!t (Annexurs R-7) was -aiso notified whteh was received by the Prlnclpai ofthe Coilege. It was decided to conduct the examination c-f the same subject again takins into consideration the carser of the students and a decision to thai effect was notified on the Colieae Noiice Board, and ihs siudents submltted their examinatioh forms. The petitioner's contention is whoity unacceptabie that he dld not know about ii. As a matter of fact, the petitioner ss making false statement because as has been informed, the petitloner fuiiy kns-w about a!l this devstopmsnt of canceliation of examinatlon and holding fresh axamination. !n fact, he himseif had fiiied the sxamination form aiso, photocoov oi ths same is Annexure R-9, and roii No.90655 was aiiotted to the petitioner, but he failed to appear in the examination, whieh vires held <?n 23-11-2004 and resuit of the same was declared on 13-1-2005 Y/hlch is Annexure R-11. Even those stutients who coulci not pass in thls examination, considerlng that examinatibn as matn cxaminat!on, a suppiementary examinatlon was aiso deciared vide notincation daied 13-1- 2005, and jn that axamination also 12 stud®ntsh-ad again appearsd which ,was held on 21-2-2005, Paee 4 of 10 5. Return has aiso been fited on behalf of respondent No.2 In which it has been specificaiiy mentioned that whaiever decision was tatei" by respondent No.1 was notified on the Notice Board. The petitioner's case is that he was not informed is fuily faise. Even pursuarst to the notificatlon, the petitioner himseif filled ths examination form, bui faiisd to appear in ths same. Therefore, it has been prayed by the respondents that the writ petition be dismissed. 8. ! have heard learned counsei for the partles. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that before canceliation of the examination no opportunity or no show cause notice was served upon the peiitioner or other students to expiain their stand and thereby principie of naturai justice has been vioiated. He further submitted that oncs the coptes were evaiuated, resuli was dec!ared and the petitioner was given admission in the second year B.Sc., the respondents were not entitled to cancei the examination of first year B.Sc. thereafter. Apart from these h.vo grounds no ground was raised by iearned counsei fcr the petitioner. 3. On the other hand. Mr. Manindra Shrivastavg, iearned Senior Advocate argued that ihe question of issuancs of show cause notlce to ihe students (sxaminees) is concsrned, as this was a cass of rrsass copyins, it was not necessary to issue show cause nolice to all the students. But, in faet al! the precautions and care was taten by respondent No.1 before canceiiing the sxamination In order to ensurs that no prejudice is caussd to She students and thesr Intsrsst sh-ould not bs harmsd v/ithout any bssis. Thersfore, first of ail when examiner reported the matter aboui mass copying, then in order io have second opinion, thess copiss wsre sent to a senior Professor who aiso was of the same view and therefore, the matter was placed before the u'nfair Means Committee for its consideration and even explanatlons of the Principa! and invigilators were aiso sought. The Unfair ^4eans Committes after considering the rsports of ths examlners and othsr relevant matsriai reached to the coneluslon that the report of ihe examiners is correct, and accordingiy, recommended for canceliation of the examination. Thsrsafler; the matter was ptaced before the Executive CouncH and the Executlv® Council also after considering the material accepted the resommendatlons of the Unfair Means Committee. Therefore, in facts and csrcumstances of the case, it cannot be said that any principie of naiural JUSECS or substantlai justice has been viofated in thls case. @ Page 5, of 10 9. As far as the second point raised by tearned counsel for the peiitloner, learneti Senior Advocate Mr. Manintira Shrivastava argued that when ine report of the sxaminers was being processad, in the mean tims, inadvertently, the resuit was decisred, but that cannot be made a ground for quashing the decision. 10.1-iaving heard iearned counsei for the parties, ! have perused the retevant record^ and case law on the point. Additionai poinis raised by the respondents herein in thetr return have not been denied by the petltioner by TiHng a rejclnder. A-part from that in his petition, the petitioner has mentioned that ,he was never informed about the canceilation of sxaminaiion. Bui this fact stands belied by ihe fact that sven iha petltioner fiiled ihe sxamination form for the sxaminatlon which was to ce eonducted again of the subject Zoology 1SI paper and even he was allotted roil No.90655, but failed to appear in the examination. Therefore, as per the settted !aw, ffie petltionsr's petitfon is llabte to be dlsmissed on ths ground of conceaiment of facts whiie filing the writ petltion before this Court. For this view; 1 am supported by the decision of the Apex Court reported in (1983) 3 SCC 333 (Dr. Vijay Kumar Kathuria vs. Stats of Haryana and others), in which the Apex Court heid that on false repressntation and reckless ailegatlons the petitioners are disentitied to geiting any relief from the Court. 1-As far as the cuestion of issuing show cause notice to the petitioner and others students before canceilation of exarnination is concerned, as per the facis of ihis case, this case was of mass copying hy aii ihe students ai the examination center, therefore, neiiher it was necessary nor possible to issue show cause notice to ail the students and ask for their explanation. In the present case when the examiner reported about mass copying, then in order to have second opinton about tha same, coptes wsre sent to anotf-.er Professor who aiso was of the same view which was expressed by the first examiner, and therefore, the matter was referred to the Unfair iyieans Commiitee which considered ail the maisriai and reachsd to ihe conclusion that the recommendations of the examiner is corrsct. Again the matter was oiaced before the Executive Counc-ii of the University, whic-h aiso considered the materiai and accepted the reconimendatsons. As has been mentioned in the return that the examiners found verbatlm answers in ali the answer sheets, even it was found that the wordincs of beginnlns oi answers, change of paragraphs and end of paragraphs were aiso verbaiim. Not only this. even it was aiso found ihat the misiates in the answer sheets Page 6 of 10 wer®found verbatim same. in additton to this, severat features showing that a!i the answers were common and omitting the same things were found. Based on the experience and expertise in the subject, in the first instance, the first examiner reached to the conclusion that there was mass copying and his opinion was conflrmed by another Professor of the same subject, and the matter was considered by the Unfair Means CommlSee aiso by the Executive Council. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said decision of respondent No.1 to cancel the examination stands vitiated on account of violation of principie of natursi justice by not giving show cause notices to the students. 12.in ihis connection, the decision of ihe Orissa High Court reported in AIR 1995 Orissa 229 (Miss Mamata Ma.harathi and others v. Counci! of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa and another) is retevant, In which the Orissa High Court heid that on the basis of flying squads reports that examinee invoived In mass copying, there was outside interference and atmosphere or violence in examinatlon hall/premises; in such case questlon of foilowing prindpies of natural jusiice does not arise. The Court further heid that thsrs are chances that some good siudents' interesi is also effected bv canceilation of such examination, but that cannot be mads ground for arriving at a decision that the impugned decision is bad. 13.1n the matter of Madhyamic Shiksha Manda!, M.P. vs. Abhiiash Shiksha Prasar Samiti and others reported in (1998) 9 SCC 238, the Apex Court heid that cancellation of the examination on the report of the Naib Tehslldar who visited ihe centre and found ihe students copying with impunlty even bsfors ths distribuiion of qusstion papsrs, inisrferencs by ths High Court in such matters was not called for. tt was further obssrved that some jnnoesnt students might have suffered due to the canceiiation of examination, but Stiat cannot be made ground for assaHlng the said decision. 14.1n the matter of Biswa Ranjan Sahc-o and others vs. Sushanta Kumar Dinda and others reported in (1996) 5 SCC 385, three Judges' Bench of the Apex Court heid that faiiure to issue notices on adjudicaiion of a case of mass maipractice in setection process, wher®answer-books of various successfu! eandidatss showing upwards aiteration of marks at several piaces and ttie answer-book of a particular candidate tound to have besn examined by a different examiner who nad noted the marRs in pencll. in such a case of mass maipractice the State Administrative Tribunal rightiy ^7 Page 7 of 10 nuilified the selection without issuing notice to the persons seiected in such selection. 15.Ful! Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Master Vibhu Kapoor v. Councsi of tndian School Certificate Examination and another rsported in ASR 1985 Daihi 142 relied upon by isarned counsei for the petitioner is of no assisiance to the petitioner because that was not the casfr of mass copying and the answers of the petitioner were found to be similar to those of another student and no notice was glven to the delinquent or his fatiier or no opportunity of hearing wss given and invigiistors v/ere not examined, hence, the Court quashed the action. But, in the instant case as it reiatss to mass copying and this matier is squareiy covered by ihs dscision of the Orissa High Court {Miss Mamata Maharathi (supra)} as we!i as the judgments of the Apex Court mentloned above,as such this authority is not appiicabie in the present cass. 16.Learned counse! for the petitioner also relied upon the deosion of the Apex Court in the matter of Rajesh Kumar and another v. Instltute of Engineers (india) reported in AIR 1998 SC S. As has been mentioned above, in ths first instanc®,ihis was not a easa of mass copying and ths Apsx Court quashed the dedsion c-f ihe instituie of Enginesrs nnding the procedure defective which wa-s adopted by the Institute for amving at a decision fhat the peiltioner wss invoived in copying. The facts and circumstancss of that cass were entireiy different from the present case. in that case simitarity of answers was made ground for canceliation of examination of the petitioner whereas, 'm ihe preseni cass, as has been mentioned that the axammsr after svaluating ths answsr sheeis of all the students found that the answers were not oniy similar, but paragraphs were simiiar, even mistakes were simiiar, and omissions were a!so simi'ar. Therefore, in view of the above facts, the facfs and circumstancss of the present case are not similar to Rajesh Kumar's case. Hence, the judgment of the Apex Court relied upon by iearneQ counsei for the petitioner is distinctive on the facts and not helpfui to the petitioner. 17.Thsrefore. in the facis and ciroumstances of the case, it cannot be said that In this matter principles of natural justice have been vlolated or the petitioner was entitied for show cause notice before canceilatton of the sxamlnation. S.As far as the second point raised by learned counsei for the petitionsr that when the rssult was declared and the petitjoner was allpwed to take Page 8 of 10 admission in ths second year, the respondents were not entitled to cance' the examination, and when the first examiner reported the matter then the Registry ought to have withheid the resuit and once the result is declared, tbe petitioner acied upon that result and took admission in the second year, thereaftar, cancellation of ths sxamination amounis to serious prejudice to the interest of the petitioner, as such on this ground also the order is liable to be quashed. The argument advanced by iearned counsei, in the first instance appears to be prima facie attractlve and reasonable. But, when the facts of the present case are criticatiy examined, evaiuated and objectively eonsidered, then the ground raised by learned counsei for the peiinoner is of no merit for the reason that whiie canceiiing the examinaiion on the ground of mass- copying in order to protect the inierest or" the students, the Executive Counci! of respondent No.1 decided to conduct a separate examination of the sams subject i.e. Zoology 1 paper, and treating that examination as main examinatlon, aHowed the students io appear in the examination and the same was heid on 23-11-2004, in which number of students appsared and many of them passed the examination aiso. Even those students who couid not pass were mad®eiigibte for supplementary examination and they were allowed io appear in the supplementary examination, which vras also conducted on 21-2-2005, and in that examinatlon also 12 students appeared. Therefore, i't cannot be said that after deciaration of the resuit if the examination is canceiled then same has seriously prejudiced the right of the students and aiso of the petitioner, bscause ai! ths students including th®peiitionsr wsre given opportunity io reappear in the same examination in order to prove their worth and even that examination has been treated as main examination and one supplementary was also conducted, in that aiso the petitloner faiied to appear. Even though the petitioner fiiled the examination form and he v/as allotted the rol! number, but he failed to appsar in e same. This fact itself shows ihat the petitioner's ciaim is not bona fide and fair. On the contrary, conduct of ths psiition&r confirms the opinion of the examiner ihat there was mass copying In the examination, Therefore, the ground raised by the petitioner is of no merit. 19.0f course, when the first sxaminer reported the matter about mass copying and the matter was referred te the second examiner, who aiso agreed in mass copying, in aii faimess, while processing the matter further the University ought to have withheid the resuit of the Zoology 1s' Paper and only after taking a final decision by the Exscutive CounciL respondent No.1 — -.-.--.-_ _-i Page 9 of 10 ought to have published the decision taksn by the Executive C-ouncil. From facts iS appears that there was no co-ordlnation among various branches of the University which was preparing the resuit and which was iooking after the case regarding mass copying. In such a case, aii the branches of the University must have worked ina coordinated manner in order to avert such iapses, which effect the credibiiity and reputation of the institution. 1 hope that the Registry of the University and the Vice-Chanceilor wiil look into this aspect, so that such lapse should not re-occur in future. 20-Now, coming to the question of judiciai review by the Hlgft Court, in the matter of Chairman, J & K State Board of Education vs. Feyaz Ahmed Malik and others reported in (2000) 3 SCC 59, in the case of canceilaiion of examination on account of mass copying the Apex Court observed that 'Whlle judging the authority or otherwise a!l steps taken by authorities of the Board to take action against candidates taking resort to mass maipractice it should be borne in mind that the Board is entrusted wlth the duty of maintaining higher standards of sducation and proper conduct of examinations. It is an expert body consisting of persons coming from different walks of life who are engaged in or mterested in the field of education and have wide experience. The decisiori of such an expert body should be givendue weightage by courts. in matters concerning campus discipline of educationa! insinutions and conductof examinations the duty is primariiy vcsted in the authorities in charge of thelnstitutions. in such matters the court shouid try not to substitute its own views in piace of the authorities concerned nor thrust its views on them. That is not to say Shat the court cannot at all interfere with the decisions of the authorities in such matters. The court has undoubtedly the power to intervene to correct any error in complying with the provisions of the rules, reguiations or notifications and to remedy any manifest injustice being perpetrated on the candidates." 21.Therefore, the Courts are not expected to interfere in the cases where some decislon has been taken by the Board or University based on their expertise and experience for maintaining higher standards of education and proper conduct of examination- The Courts must give due weightage to such decision of the expert body and that is aiso necessary in order to maintain discipline in the educational institutions and conduct of examination. However, the Courts are not preciuded from exercising its power oj^, judicial review in order to correct any error and where the authority found iacking in compiying with the provisions of ruies, regutations and nQtifications issued by the Board or University, She C-ourts can eertainly siep-in in order to remedy the manifest injusiice perpeirated on the ^' P^e 10 of 10 candidates and where the C-ourt reaches to the conctusion that if the order Impugnec! Is allowed to ex!st Shen same wil! amount to failure of Justice. 22.Therefore, in vtew of the above discussion, 1 am