fy IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (C) N0. •^QA /2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS !'?»• <,••' Azaz Ali, S/o. Shri Kasim Ali, Aged about 22 years, R/o. General Post Office Manendragarh, Presently at Koni, BIaspur (C.G.) VERSUS r' 1. Registrar, Gurughasidas University Bilaspur (C.G.) V" 2. Principal, Sulochna, Lakhanlal Trivedi, Institute of Pharmacy, Gurughasidas University Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. ' Secretary, Higher Education, State of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA z^. .^p ^y"^''. ^.-•" ^^^p- • '^^9>-" __\ J ^F^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0.2430 OF 2010 PETITIONER AzazAli RESPONDENTS Versus Registrar, Guru Ghasidas University & Others ^ Post for pronouncement of the order on [°i 'day of July, 2010 n' Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge H!GH_COURTOFCHHATT[SGARH^BfLASPUR WRIT PETITION (0 N0.2430 OF 2010 PETITIONER AzazAli RESPONDENTS Versus Registrar, Guru Ghasidas University & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Sarfaraj Khan, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. 0_R_D_E_R (Delivered on this _/^day of July, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ/direction to the respondent University to permit him to appear in the 2 year annual examination, which had already commenced from 11-5-2010 (as per reliefclause 10.1 ofthe petition). 2. The facts, in nutshell, which are necessary for disposal of this case, and as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner is a regular student of B. Pharma 2 year of Sulochna Lakhanlal Trivedi Institute of Pharmacy, which is affiliated with the respondent University. According to the petitioner, the petitioner attended the classes of B. Pharma 2nd year and the annual examinations of 2 year B. Pharma is commencing from 11-6-2010 (as per 8.3 ofthe petition). However, as per the directions of the respondent University, the college authorities have not allowed the petitioner to appear in the 2" year examination on the ground that the petitioner has been punished for use of Unfair Means (UFM) at the time of writing of examination of 1 year B.Pharma in Pharmaceutical Engineering subject. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondent University and informed that he has never used the incriminating notes during the .'Y^ 2"^. 'k'\ IJ examination and requested them to permit him to write the 2 year B. Pharma examinations, but no action has been taken by the respondent University. Thus, this petition. 3. Shri Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that admittedly the petitioner, was in possession of some notes, which the petitioner had forgotten to remove from his pocket, was caught while the petitioner was writing the examination of Pharmaceutical Engineering on 9-4-2009. The entire examination of the 1 year was cancelled when the authorities should have cancelled the examination of the petitioner only in Pharmaceutical Engineering subject and thereafter, he should be permitted to appear in the supplementary examination, which had already taken place. 4. Shri Khan would further submit that before cancellation of the entire examination, the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing contrary to clause 5 of the Regulation No.11 of Regulation for the disposal of cases of "use of attempt to use unfair means" and disorderly conduct at an examination by a candidate (for short "the Regulation"), which provides for affording of a reasonable opportunity to the candidate for submission of representation. Thus, the respondent University may be directed to permit the petitioner to appear in the supplementary examination of Pharmaceutical Engineering subject and on the basis of marks obtained in other subjects as well as in the supplementary examination the results of the 1 year B. Pharmacy may also be declared so that the petitioner may save one year of his academic session. 5. On the other hand, Shri Shrivastava, learned counset appearing for the respondent No.l/University, would submit that no notice is required as well settled principle of law is that if opportunity of hearing would not serve any purpose, the notice may be dispensed —-• —~-1 ..^.-A'^- ft'y^ ^ ; ^lfc%i, 1, ''>, i^J's/ ::'!d^ with. In the case on hand, the petitioner by his letter dated 26-11-2009 (Annexure - D/3) has admitted the factum of having in his possession of some incriminating papers at the time of examination of Pharmaceutical Engineering. Thus, the notice would not serve any purpose. Clause 5 of the Regulation is in that event when there is no admission of guilt by the candidate then no action should be taken without affording a reasonable opportunity to submit the representation. Shri Shrivastava would further submit that the 1 year B. Pharma examinations, keeping in view the malpractices committed by the several candidates, have been organized, which is to commence from 19-7-2010 (Annexure - D/4). 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 7. It seems to be a case of no notice, as the factum of petitioner, being caught, having incriminating papers in his pocket during the examination in Pharmaceutical Engineering subject is not disputed. Even had the opportunity of hearing to submit representation been afforded under the provisions of the Regulation 5 of the Regulations, there would not be any improvement or change in the result. (See Viveka Nand Sethi v. Chairman, J&K Bank Ltd. and Others and P.D. Agrawal v. State Bank of India and Others ). 8. Further the supplementary examination, which was to commence according to the petitioner has already come to an end. In case of academic matters there should be a strict discipline to maintain the educational standard. 9. In Director (Studies), Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Hotel Management, Nutrition & Catering Technology, Chandigarh and ' (2005) 5 SCC 337 2 (2006) 8 SCC 776 \ k y /- 10. 11 Gowri Others v. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan , the Supreme Court observed that: "7.....1n our opinion, this is wholly irrelevant. All that is relevant is whether the slip of paper found in the possession of the examinee pertained to the examination paper in question. If it does, then it is a malpractice. In this particular case, the said slip of paper was brought into the examination hall and was found to be in the possession ofthe examinee while the examination was going on. Whether the respondent actually used that slip or not is irrelevant. This view finds support from the decjsion of this Court in CBSE v. Vineets Mahajan....." For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the opportunity afforded by the respondent University to the petitioner to appear in the examination of 1 year B. Pharma, which is to commence from 19-7-2010, is available to the petitioner. The petitioner may appear in the said examination accordingly. There shall be no order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge (2009) 1 SCC 59