IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 31295 of 2011(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- MS.ELGI JOHNY,5TH SEMESTER B.TECH DEGREE (INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY)STUDENT,VISWAJYOTHI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY,VAZHAKULAM P.O MUVATTUPUZHA,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN 686 670. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM) SRI.K.R.GANESH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REP.BY ITS REGISTRAR,PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM 686 562. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS,ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM 686 562. 3. THE PRINCIPAL & CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT VISWAJYOTHI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY VAZHAKULAM P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 686 670. ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN FOR R3 SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN FOR R3 SRI.K.T.THOMAS FOR R3 SRI.T.A.SHAJI, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.31295/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONERS MARK LIST FOR 1ST & 2ND SEMESTERS DATED 28.9.2010. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONERS MARK LIST FOR 3RD SEMESTER DATED 23.3.2011. EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONERS MARK LIST FOR 4TH SEMESTER DATED 30.09.2011. EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 21.11.2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE CHAPTER 14 OF THE M.G UNIVERSITY EXAMINATION MANUAL. EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.11.201 IN W.P(C)NO.32577/2010 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 31295 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 28th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a student of the college of which the 3rd respondent is the Principal. She is presently in the 5th semester. On 21/11/11, in the semester examination for the subject “Engineering Mathematics-IV”, the invigilator noticed that the petitioner had written something on her right leg. The invigilator, Mrs.Merin Jojo, reported the matter to the Examination Control Room and the Additional Chief Superintendent came to Hall No.B- 304 and she also found that some scripts were written on the right leg of the petitioner. 2. The invigilator made a report to the Chief Superintendent on the same day. Accordingly, memo was issued to the petitioner ordering an enquiry. She was also directed to discontinue writing the examination and prevented from appearing in the further examinations. It was at that stage, this writ petition was filed on 23/11/11. 3. In the writ petition, petitioner specifically pleaded thus: “It is understood that the Enquiry Officer has exonerated the petitioner in the Enquiry Report and has held that the WPC No. 31295/11 :2 : petitioner has not committed any malpractice. The 1st respondent has to take a decision on the said Enquiry Report which will be further delayed.” 4. Taking into account these averments and holding that if the averments of the petitioner are factually correct, there was no reason why the petitioner should be prevented from appearing in the examination, this Court admitted the writ petition and by order dated 24/11/2011 directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear in the examination held on 25/11/11 and posted the case to 28/11/11. It is accordingly the matter is now coming up for further consideration. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent college produced before me the relevant file with all records including the report of the invigilator to the Chief Superintendent referred to above, the memo issued to the petitioner and also her reply dated 21/11/11. In the said reply, the petitioner admitted of having rubbed off certain numbers written on her right leg, but however, she has pleaded that she had no intention to commit any malpractice. It is also seen that on 21/11/11, the Additional Chief Superintendent for Examination made a report to the Controller of Examinations of the University about the incident in WPC No. 31295/11 :3 : question, where it is stated that the petitioner had written “some mathematics similar to matrix calculations on her right leg with blue ink”, and that, as per the University examination Manual regarding the malpractices in the examinations, the above incident is a malpractice. 6. The file also contains an enquiry report of Professor M.P.Gracy, the Enquiry Officer, which concludes by stating thus; “Ms.Elgi Johny (Reg No.225640) had written some numbers on her right leg when entered the hall for the examination of Engineering Mathematics IV on 21/11/2011 FN. Before Chief Superintendent arrived to the hall she had rubbed off the writing on the leg.” 7. The enquiry report is also forwarded to the University by the Chief Superintendent under cover of letter dated 25/11/11. 8. Thus, from the materials produced, prima facie, malpractice is seen to have been committed by the petitioner and the enquiry report with a finding of guilt is pending consideration of the University. In this context, it is to be noticed that in the hall tickets issued to the student, it is specifically provided that any candidate detected of violating the rules will be sent out of the hall forthwith and will not be permitted to sit for the remaining WPC No. 31295/11 :4 : papers of the examination. It is further provided that, violation of the rules may involve cancellation of the examination taken by a candidate and his/her rustication for a period to be decided by the University. 9. Thus, in the light of the allegations against the petitioner, and the findings of the enquiry officer, the aforesaid provision contained in the hall ticket is attached. If that be so, petitioner is liable to be prevented from appearing for the remaining examinations. Counsel contended that even if the allegations are accepted, that does not amount to a malpractice as laid down in Ext.P5, the relevant extract of the Examination Manual of the University. However, as can be seen from the reports of the Chief Superintendent and the Enquiry Officer, this contention does not appear to be tenable. That apart, it is for the University to decide on this contention and therefore, at this stage, it is premature to consider this plea. In so far as Ext.P6 judgment is concerned, that was not a case where enquiry was already held. That was also not a case where all the materials were available before this Court. In such circumstances, that judgment cannot be of any assistance to the petitioner. WPC No. 31295/11 :5 : 10. Writ petition is dismissed. However, I direct the University to take a final decision on the report, which the University shall do, within two weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp