1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR : O R D E R : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7675/2008. (Miss Andar Kanwar Vs. Jai Narayan Vyas University & Another) DATE OF ORDER : January 19th, 2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS ______________________________________ Mr. P.S. Bhati/Mrs. Nupur Bhati for the petitioner. Mr. P.R. Singh for the respondent(s). BY THE COURT : In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondent University for declaring the B.A. Part-I Examination result of the petitioner and, further, to permit the petitioner to file the B.A. Part-II examination form. In this case, in pursuance of notice issued by this Court, reply has been filed by the respondent University. On 16.10.2008, however, suo motu, on the basis of a news item published in the daily news-paper Dainik Bhaskar, this Court took serious cognizance with regard to grave allegations made by some girl students of the University and this Court, therefore, while taking suo motu cognizance called upon the Registrar of the 2 University and Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur to ascertain matter of fact position in that regard. On the same day i.e., 16.1.2008, at 2 O'clock, the matter was taken up and following direction was issued : “1. The Registrar, Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur is directed to procure confidential report from all the Heads of Department of the various Faculties and Principal, Kamla Nehru Girls College, Jodhpur with regard to complaints with their own comments. These reports may be kept in sealed cover. 2. The Registrar of the University shall further ensure protection to the girl students of the University in various faculties as well as Kamla Nehru Girls College, Jodhpur. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur is directed to monitor the security of girls of the University and different colleges and shall take action as and when any complaint/report is received from the Dean of the Faculty and Principal of the College immediately and provide proper security to the students. The Superintendent of Police is directed to give strict direction to the Police Station concerned in whose jurisdiction the colleges are situated to provide adequate security to the girl students of the college concerned and take strict action in accordance with law. 4. The Superintendent of Police shall also take report from the concerned Police Station about measures taken in the past for providing adequate security and peaceful atmosphere for the girl students. 5. The Principal and Heads of Department of the college/faculty/University wings are also expected to submit information to the Registrar from time to time with regard to the atmosphere of the institution. They shall furnish their report once every month to the Registrar of the University. Upon 3 receiving the same, the Registrar shall take appropriate action and, if necessary, may take police protection also. 6. It is also expected from the Head of the University who is none else than the Vice Chancellor to take appropriate action without any fear against alleged illegal activities of those students who are creating problems not only for the girl students but the administration of the institution as well because the right to education is fundamental right and is required to be directed by the institution concerned.” On 24.10.2008, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be granted an opportunity to appear in the II Year Examination of B.A. as she was allowed by the University to appear at the I Year Examination of B.A. but her result has not been declared so far. Further, prayer was made for declaring the result of the petitioner of B.A., I Year examination. Learned counsel for the respondent University submitted before the Court that due to connivance with some employees of the University, the petitioner managed to appear in the I Year examination without even being allotted Roll Number and without even depositing the examination fee. For proving the said assertion, he placed on record Annex.-R/1, application of the father of the petitioner, Madan Singh and contended that no order can be passed in favour of the petitioner for declaring her 4 result of the B.A., I Year examination and to allow her in the B.A., II Year examination course. On that date, to ascertain from the petitioner whether examination fee is deposited by the petitioner or not, time was granted to the counsel for the petitioner. On that date, the compliance report was also filed by the Registrar of the University as well as Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur. Although time was allowed to the counsel for the petitioner, no affidavit was filed showing the evidence of depositing examination fee by the petitioner; but, a request was made by the petitioner on 17.12.2008 that the petitioner may be permitted to fill up admission form for admission to B.A., Part I. The prayer made by the petitioner was granted and she was permitted to fill up admission form for B.A., Part I and, in pursuance of the said order, it is reported by learned counsel for the respondent University that the petitioner has already taken admission in B.A. I Year; meaning thereby, now the petitioner is pursuing the studies of B.A. I Year in the University. This case was listed in the Court on 12.01.2009, and, on that date, it was felt necessary by this Court to get information from the University that who was the 5 invigilator on the date when petitioner was allowed to appear in the examination and how question paper was given to her without any roll number. Today, in pursuance of the said direction, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent University that departmental enquiry has been initiated against the responsible persons which is incorporated in the reply itself and the department is taking action for that. Upon perusal of the reply filed by the respondents, it is obvious that the petitioner has tried to mislead this Court while not disclosing the correct fact that she has not deposited the fees and no proper roll number was issued by the University for appearing in B.A. Part I Year while this writ petition has been filed. The University, in its reply, specifically stated that it was well within the knowledge of the petitioner that she had not deposited the examination fees. Further it was within the knowledge of the petitioner that receipts filed with the writ petition are receipts of hostel fee and not examination fee; but, she concealed the material facts from this Court. As a matter of fact, the petitioner and her father were having the knowledge of the fact that application form has not been submitted along with requisite examination fee which is evident from Annex.- 6 R/1, application filed by the father of the petitioner on 15.09.2008. The father of the petitioner again filed application on 16.09.2008 upon which the Vice Chancellor of the University immediately ordered to inquire into the matter and, upon inquiry, it was revealed that examination form of the petitioner was not submitted to the University, therefore, the University cancelled the result of the petitioner. It is also stated by the respondent University that the examination form along with requisite examination fee was not submitted by the petitioner; and, thereafter, one Jayendra Singh Deora who is near relative of the petitioner and posted in the office of the University, prepared false admission card. Further, as per the reply, Annex.-4 admission card was prepared fraudulently while leaving the column of the roll number blank and, in the column of Enrollment Number, the roll number was mentioned. That apart, the seal is also invisible and, this fact is sure and certain that the seal and signature on the photo of the petitioner are not of the forwarding officer and nor the same was forwarded to the office of respondent No.2. It is, therefore, clear that somebody has played fraud with the University and as such the petitioner's 7 examination was cancelled. The Examination Cell has also ordered inquiry into the matter and charge-sheet has been issued to the person concerned. Upon perusal of the entire facts of the case, I am of the opinion that in the educational institution such fraud cannot be countenanced. More so, in this case, further inquiry is required to be made by the University administration how the petitioner was allowed to appear in the examination hall by the invigilator and how the question paper was given to her without any roll number. Although, for the said purpose, on 12.01.2009, information was sought by this Court; but, upon the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that the so called examination of the petitioner of B.A. I Year has rightly been cancelled by the University and the action of the respondent University is required to be upheld. Further, it is also required to be observed that the petitioner herself made a prayer on 17.12.2008 for permitting her to fill up application form for B.A. I Year examination and she was permitted to do so. In view of the aforesaid, the prayer of the petitioner in the writ petition does not survive as the petitioner's examination for B.A. I Year has been 8 cancelled by the University and petitioner has prayed for granting her fresh admission in B.A. I Year course and vide order dated 1712.2008 she was permitted to take admission in the B.A., I Year. In this matter, directions issued by this Court on 16.10.2008 are hereby made absolute and, further, it is directed that the Registrar of the University shall make inquiry with regard to allowing the petitioner in the examination by the invigilator and, so also, allowing the petitioner to appear in the examination without any proper roll number and without depositing examination form and fees for B.A., I Year. After inquiry, necessary action may also be taken against the erring employees and all those persons who were involved in the matter. In this view of the matter, the action of the University for cancelling the petitioner's examination of B.A., I Year – 2008 is hereby upheld and this writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the University to comply with directions made by this Court on 16.10.2008 for smooth functioning and for completing the inquiry within three months. No order as to costs. (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J. Ojha, a.