Civil Writ Petition No. 7024 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 7024 of 2010 Date of decision: 27.08.2010 Sandeep Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. K.S. Malik-1, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner, who was a candidate of 1st semester of MBA examination, appeared for this examination at Centre No. 926 Vaish College of Engineering, Rohtak in the month of December, 2008. This examination was completed without any complaint. The respondent/University declared the result of the examination on 15.04.2009 and the result of the petitioner was shown as 'RL' (Result Late). When the petitioner received the mark sheet, he was shown as absent. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the respondent/ University on 06.05.2009 with the grievance that he had appeared in all the subjects. The petitioner received no satisfactory answer. The Principal of the Vaish Institute of Management and Technology, Rohtak sent a letter to the University and thereafter the letter was received which the petitioner says is a concocted story. Civil Writ Petition No. 7024 of 2010 2 The petitioner was issued a communication on 29.12.2009, which was a charge sheet for use of unfair means in 1st semester of MBA examination. The allegations made against the petitioner are given as under:- “1. You manipulated to smuggled out your answer book after the examination either from the examination centre or from secrecy Branch. 2. You and other candidate Roll No. 319336 copied each other or from some common source in Managerial Economic and Quantitative analysis mentioned above. 3. You again manipulated and smuggled your answer book in the secrecy branch. 4. Further the hand writing on all the __ answer book (s) is same. It is clear that some one else had attempted your answer book. 5. You attempted the question on the cross pages in the answer book which were left blank earlier. You also used some chemical/ink remover to delete the cross lines in the answer books. 6. The handwriting of all the __ answer books are different. It is clear that some other person (s) have attempted your answering book (s). 7. You attempted the questions on the pages which were left blank earlier which are in the different pen/ink.” The impugned order was passed on 09.02.2010 holds that unfair means case was registered against the petitioner and other candidates appearing in the examination of the subject of Managerial Civil Writ Petition No. 7024 of 2010 3 Economic and Quantitative Analysis. The Committee was constituted for the purpose of considering the report of Centre Superintendent. On the basis of relevant material and other circumstances, it was found that the petitioner was guilty of using unfair means/misconduct. The Committee, accordingly, decided to cancel the entire examination at the centre where the petitioner had appeared in the December 2008. The petitioner was, accordingly, debarred from appearing in any university examination for a period of one year i.e. upto and including the examination of December 2009. The petitioner was asked to submit his explanation and to appear before the Standing Committee on 05.01.2010. The petitioner submitted his reply to the same denying the allegation maintaining that he had not done any cheating during the examination and that he was able to complete the entire examination without any problem. The petitioner, accordingly, contends that there is no justification to pass the impugned order. Though the counsel for the University orally submits that subsequent to this also the petitioner has not been permitted to appear in the examination during June 2010 but there is no material placed on record in this regard. Vide impugned order, the petitioner was debarred from appearing in the university examination for a period of one year, which was up to December 2009 including the examination upto the said date. There is no reason for debarring the petitioner in any subsequent examination which University has conducted. The effect of punishment is already over. Relief as claimed as such is rendered infructuous at this stage. I have not been able to accept the submission that the Civil Writ Petition No. 7024 of 2010 4 action of the University in cancelling the examination at the entire centre is not justified. It may be so that the petitioner was not responsible for leaking of the paper. Possibly the petitioner may not have used any unfair means, but keeping in view the nature of allegation made in the charge sheet, it is not possible to segregate the case of any individual candidate. Obviously, the effect of what has happened would be on the entire centre. In this background, impugned order was passed, after affording an opportunity of hearing and would not suffer from any legal infirmity. The examination in which the petitioner had appeared and which is cancelled now cannot be revived. The only effected relief now, which can be allowed to the petitioner, is that he be permitted to appear in the next examination in near future. It is so ordered. Otherwise, nothing would survive in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. August 27, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE