IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.6747 of 2009 (O & M) Date of Decision: May 19, 2009 Harneet Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Panjab University, Chandigarh & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anupam Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, by Harneet Singh son of Gurvinder Singh, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Order dated 13.4.2009 (Annexure P-5). In the alternate, it has been prayed that an order be issued directing the respondent- University to treat the unfair means case of the petitioner under Regulation 9 of the Panjab University Calendar – Volume II, 2007 and treat the petitioner to be disqualified from appearing in Political Science paper of 1st Semester held in CWP No.6747 of 2009 [2] December 2008 and in the subjects of Contract, English and Family Law of the 4th Semester which were held on 20.4.2009, 23.4.2009 and 29.4.2009. The gist of the prayer in alternative is that the punishment imposed under Order, Annexure P-5, be interpreted to debar the petitioner from appearing in four papers/ examinations in which he had appeared but has been deemed to be disqualified. It has been argued that the term ‘examination’ as it appears in Regulation 9 and the order, has to be interpreted as ‘paper’. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not pressed the petition in regard to the first prayer. It seems that the petitioner took admission in Law (5 years’ course) in the year 2006. The year is divided into two semesters and therefore, two examinations take place in every year. While appearing in November/December 2008 for 3rd Semester Examination, on 4.12.2008 when the petitioner was taking exam in a re-appear (Political Science subject) of 1st Semester, there was an allegation of cheating as a note hidden in his handkerchief was found. When the petitioner was confronted with the same, he swallowed it. Be that as it may, after following due process, the penalty culminated in Order conveyed to the petitioner vide Annexure P-5 dated 13.4.2009. Order, Annexure P-5 reads as under:- “The unfair means case against him has been CWP No.6747 of 2009 [3] decided and he has been disqualified from appearing in any University Examination for a period of one year i.e. from Nov./Dec., 2008 to April/May, 2009 under regulation/s 9 & 18 appearing at page/s 11 & 12 of the Panjab University Calendar, Volume II, 2007.” Reference to Regulations 9 and 18 would also be required which have been reproduced at Page 18 of the petition:- “9. If a candidate during an examination of the University is found swallowing or attempting to swallow a note or paper or runs away with it or is guilty of causing disappearance or destroying any such material he shall be disqualified from appearing in any University examination for two years including that in which he is found guilty if he is a candidate for an examination held once a year, or for four examinations, including that in which he is found guilty, if he is a candidate for an examination held twice a year.” xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 18. If a candidate is found guilty of (a) serious misconduct in/outside the examination hall, or (b) misbehaviour towards the Superintendent or any member of supervisory staff or of the flying squad/Inspection team or any other person deputed for the purpose or is guilty of collaboration or connivance with any other person or candidate in the commission of such an offence during or at any time after the termination of the examination, he shall be disqualified from appearing in any University Examination for a period of two to five years according to the nature of his misconduct/misbehaviour.” The controversy raised on behalf of the petitioner is that when Order, Annexure P-5, is read in conjunction with Regulations 9 & 18 reproduced above, it becomes evident that import of Annexure P-5 is contrary to the interpretation of Regulation 9. The petitioner could have been penalised vide Annexure P-5 only for four papers under Regulation 9. The impugned order however travels beyond the provision and therefore is illegal. Learned counsel for the respondents, CWP No.6747 of 2009 [4] to the contrary, has argued that there is no ambiguity in Order, Annexure P-5. The word used “examination”, as it appears in Regulation 9 and the order, Annexure P-5, would connote, an examination taken as a whole i.e. Semester Examination or Examination for yearly papers. Learned counsel for the respondents has contended that already a lenient view has been taken in so much as under Annexure P-5, the petitioner has been disqualified from appearing in any University examination for a period of one year i.e. from November/December 2008 to April/May 2009. Regulation 9 to the contrary inheres a punishment of disqualification from appearing in any University examination for two years. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has argued to the contrary that no lenient view has been taken. The interpretation of Regulation 9, in the context of the word “examination” is required. Perusal of extracted Regulation indicates that the authorities of the University had the power to disqualify a student from appearing in any “University examination for two years including that in which he is found guilty, if he is a candidate for an examination held once a year” or “four examinations including that in which he is found guilty, if he is a candidate for an examination held twice a year”. CWP No.6747 of 2009 [5] The punishment imposed on the petitioner is that he has been “disqualified from appearing in any University examination for a period of one year i.e. November/December 2008 and April/June 2009 under Regulations 9 & 18”. I do not find any ambiguity in the language. The punishment imposed on the petitioner is within the scope of Regulation 9 in so much as the penalty of disqualifying from appearing in any University examination for a period of one year has been imposed i.e. from November/December 2008 examinations that the petitioner took, at the point in time when the incident took place and the petitioner was caught, till April/May 2009 i.e. the present examination that are going on. Harmonious reading of Regulation 9 read in conjunction with Order, Annexure P-5, shows that under the provisions in the Regulation, ‘examination’ would mean an examination taken by the petitioner for a Semester. Practical interpretation of the provisions of the Regulation is required to be accepted and in the Regulation, ‘examination’ cannot be interpreted as a ‘paper’. The interpretation as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable in view of the provisions of the Regulations. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) May 19, 2009 JUDGE avin