C.W.P. No.5036 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.5036 of 2008 Decided on : 10-11-2008 Parshant ....Petitioner VERSUS Guru Jambheshwar University & others ....Respondents CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? -.- Present:- Mr. Vinod Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Dheeraj Chawla, Advocate for respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 20.12.2006 (Annexure P-1), whereby the entire Examination in respect of the petitioner held in the months of June-July, 2006, was cancelled. The petitioner was admitted in Bachelor of Mass Communication (for short 'B.M.C.) and qualified in the first year Examination. In the 2nd year examination, the University has to take paper including one practical paper of Production Portfolio. After the written examinations in the month of June-July, 2006, the petitioner appeared in the subject of Production Portfolio. However, in the month of October 2006, the petitioner was informed that he has copied the Portfolio and resorted the use of unfair means/misconduct. After reply to the petitioner, an order was passed on C.W.P. No.5036 of 2008 -2- 20.12.2006, cancelling the entire Examination, in which the petitioner appeared in June-July,2006 for use of unfair means in the Examination. The petitioner filed his representation, which was considered and rejected by the Standing Committee on 'Unfair means cases' on 25.05.2007 (Annexure P-3). The said order is challenged in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that in terms of the Ordinance 3 (g) if a candidate has produced to the Examiner a Practical, class work or note-book which does not belong to him, is guilty of use of unfair means. The punishment thereof is provided to Regulation 8. The relevant Clauses from the Ordinance read as under:- 3(g) If he is a candidate for an examination for Sciene or some other subject, presenting to the Examiner a Practical or Class work note-book which does not belong to him. 8. a candidate found guilty of use of Unfair Means shall be awarded punishment as under:- Offences Punishment _____________________________________________________________ 3(a) If the paper, note etc. Disqualified from:- has not been made use of i) passing in the concerned paper/subject and from appearing in this examination before the next Annual Examination; and 3(b), (c), (d), (f), (g), ii)appearing at any other examination till after the next annual examination. 3(a) If the paper, note, etc. Disqualified from passing in has been made use of the concerned examination in full and from appearing in the next one or more examinations. 3(e), (h), (i), (j)-(iii), (vi), (vii) C.W.P. No.5036 of 2008 -3- 3(j), (i), (ii), (iv), (v), (k) Disqualified from passing in the concerned examination in full and from appearing in the next two or more examinations The disqualification under this Ordinance will be treated as a failure in the examination and consequences of failure will follow. If a candidate is also disqualified from appearing at the next one more examinations, he shall not be admitted to any course of study, or allowed to appear at any examination of this University during the period of such disqualification. If a candidate if found guilty of Use of Unfair Means after his result has been declared, the same will be cancelled besides the candidate being awarded the punishment, which could have been awarded to him had the fact of Use of Unfair Means come to notice before the declaration of his result. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that for misconduct falling within Clause 3 (g), the punishment is, from appearing at any other examination i.e. examination other than in which allegations of unfair means are levelled. Therefore, the cancellation of all papers of the examination held in June-July, 2006 is beyond the scope of the punishment in terms of the Ordinance. A perusal of Clause 8 of Ordinance would show that it is in two parts. One is if the paper, note etc. has been made use of and the other if the paper, note etc. has not been made use of. Again the first part entails two disqualifications i.e. one is disqualification from passing in the concerned paper/subject and from appearing in this examination before the next Annual Examination. Second punishment is disqualification from appearing in any other examination till after the next Annual Examination. In view of the above provision, the disqualification in the C.W.P. No.5036 of 2008 -4- examination in which the petitioner has appeared and found using unfair means falls within the punishment of the first part. It includes, disqualification in the current examination and in any other examination till after the next annual examination. Thus, we do not find that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is not contemplated under the applicable Ordinance. The writ petition is without any merit and is thus, dismissed. (Hemant Gupta) Judge 10th November, 2008. (Nawab Singh) Monika Judge