LPA No. 410 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 410 of 2011 Date of Decision: 07.04.2011 Surbhi Dixit ..Appellant Versus Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. Maninder Arora, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Amrit Paul, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Dr. Bipin K.Dwivedi, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** RANJAN GOGOI, C.J.(Oral) This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.02.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 21596 of 2010. By the aforesaid order the learned Single Judge has upheld the order dated 18.11.2010 passed by the respondents disqualifying the appellant-writ petitioner from sitting in any examination in the respondent university for a period of two years for adoption of unfair means in an university examination. However, while upholding the said order, the learned Single Judge had thought it fit to reduce the period of disqualification to one year. LPA No. 410 of 2011 [2] The facts lies within a short compass and are being enumerated hereinbelow. In April, 2010, the appellant-writ petitioner appeared in the BBA 2nd year examination which was conducted by the respondent-Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar. The appellant is a student of New Delhi Institute of Management. Anonymous complaints with regard to the conduct of the said examination in the New Delhi Institute of Management were received by the University. Pursuant thereto, the answer scripts of all the candidates were sent to a Special Examiner for due verification and report. The Special Examiner submitted a report, which so far as the appellant is concerned, indicted him for copying the answer to question No. 1 of Section-A (fill in the blanks). The matter, thereafter, was referred to a committee of Experts. It appears that the said committee undertook a comprehensive process of scrutiny of all the answer scripts. Thereafter, a finding was recorded by the committee that in so far as question No. 1 of Section-A (fill in the blanks) is concerned, similar answers are bound to be given by the candidates if such answers are to be right and therefore, no firm conclusion with regard to copying can be reached on the basis of the said answers. It appears that the committee proceeded further in the matter and out of the 175 candidates who had taken part in the BBA 2nd year examination (paper compulsory English) 22 candidates were made to sit in a special room and answer question No. 10 of Section-B which pertained to a translation from English to Hindi. On the basis of the outcome of the said exercise, the committee reached a conclusion that all the 22 LPA No. 410 of 2011 [3] candidates, which included the petitioner, had copied the answer to the aforesaid question No. 10 and therefore, they were found guilty of unfair means in the examination. The aforesaid conclusion of the committee does give rise to a dilemma inasmuch as no finding has been recorded by the committee in its report that on scrutiny of question No. 10 of Section-B of all the 175 candidates, it is revealed that copying was resorted to by 22 candidates who were asked to redo the exercise. In the above situation, the learned Single Judge, who must have faced the said dilemma, tried to resolve the same by calling for the answer scripts of the candidates and examining them. Thereafter, a finding was recorded by the learned Single Judge that the original translation of the candidates (as in the answer scripts) was the same whereas in special exercise undertaken by the committee, the translations were different. The learned Single Judge, therefore, came to the conclusion that the eventual order dated 18.11.2010 passed by the Vice Chancellor did not call for any interference except for modification of the period of disqualification. Learned counsel for the appellant, who is one of the writ petitioners with Roll No. 40190, has vehemently contended that a reading of the report of the Special Examiner as well as the Committee would indicate that the only anomaly found in the answer script of the petitioner was in respect of question No.1 of Section-A which, on the finding of the committee itself, could not conclusively give rise to any conclusion of adoption of unfair means. Learned counsel has also pointed out that in the report of the Special Examiner, no anomaly with regard to question No. 10 of Section B LPA No. 410 of 2011 [4] (translation) was found; neither in the report of the committee there is any indication that the translation made by the appellant in the examination hall was compared with the translation made by any other candidate. In such a situation, according to the learned counsel, the entire exercise of making the appellant sit once again for translation was misdirected and on that basis the conclusion of adoption of unfair means, as recorded by the Committee, is untenable. Learned counsel has, therefore, urged that the disqualification imposed on the appellant is wholly incorrect. On the other hand, learned counsel for the University has sought to refute the arguments advanced by contending that an examination of the translation (question No. 10 of Section B) of all the candidates before the special exercise was undertaken in respect of 22 candidates is inherent and the same must be understood to have been performed by the said committee though the said fact has not been specifically recorded in the report of the Committee. Learned counsel for the University has submitted that so construed, the report of the committee is consistent and natural and there can be no misgiving in this regard. Learned counsel for the respondent University has drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that it has also been specifically recorded by the Committee that the appellant and all other candidates were heard in person before the impugned action was taken by the Vice Chancellor. We have considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. While it is correct that in the report of the committee it has not been specifically recorded that the translation of LPA No. 410 of 2011 [5] all 175 candidates ( question No. 10 of Section B) had been examined and out of them, 22 candidates were identified and were made to undertake the special exercise of translating again, that such an exercise was performed is inherent in the facts of the case. Without performing the first exercise i.e. identification of the 22 candidates from the total of 175, the second exercise i.e. making the said candidates do the translation once again could not have been logically undertaken and, therefore, to understand the second exercise to be misdirected merely because of the absence of any record of the first exercise being performed in the report of the committee would be highly illogical. This fact is further fortified by the exercise undertaken by the learned Single Judge who found that the candidates involved had given a common translation in the examination hall but in the repeat exercise that was performed, the results were wholly different. The exercise undertaken by the learned Single Judge cannot be construed to be in excess of jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Besides, the same is expressly recorded to have been so done for the purpose of the satisfaction of the Court. Further more, in the earlier part of this order we have pointed out to a dilemma which could have resulted because of the absence of any mention in the report of the committee with regard to the first exercise being performed. The only way to resolve the said dilemma was to undertake the process that was done by the learned Single Judge which clearly indicated that the concerned candidates, including the petitioner, were involved in adoption of unfair means. The said conclusion, naturally, will disentitle the petitioner to any relief. LPA No. 410 of 2011 [6] For the aforesaid reasons we are of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge should be upheld. We accordingly dismiss the appeal leaving the parties to bear their own costs. (RANJAN GOGOI) CHIEF JUSTICE (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) JUDGE 07.04.2011 'ravinder'