} ' C^ '^T^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fC 1 No. c;? S>5 T^ QF 2009 PETITIONER Ku. Anshu Modi D/0 R.S. Modi aged about 31 years, R/0 T.P. Nagar, Korba, District- Korba, (C.G.) 4 VERSUS RESPONDENTS : (1) State of Chhattisgarh, through ^"' Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Mantralay, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) ^" (2) Korba City College/ Through its ^ Principal, T.P.I\lagar, Korba, District- Korba, (C.G.) (3) Guru Ghasidas University, Through f-^- [ts Vice Chancellor, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, (C.G.) (4) Examination ContrQller ( Acting ^^ Guru Ghasidas Univerasity, Bilaspur). WRIT PETITION UZA 226 OF THECONSITITUTION OF INDIA .^/14'Q /A9<'..' ^i^y >^^r ......••'^•-•" ^r.^' 7' ^." HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETJTIQNER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (C} N0.7397 OF 2009 Ku. Anshu Modi Versus State of Chhattisgarh& Others And W.P.(C) Nos.233 & 754 of 2010 (Writ petitions underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : hlon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Awadh Tripathi, counsel for the petitioners: Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Varun Sharma, counsel for the respondent No.2/ Korba City College. Shri Ashish Shrivastava and Shri Harsh Wardhan, counsel forthe respondents No.3 to 5/Guru Ghasidas University. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 21st day of June,2010) 1. W.P. (C) No.7397 of 2009 and W.P. (C) Nos. 233 & 754 of 2010 involve the same question of law, arising from the same cause ofaction and, as such, they are being considered anddecided by this common order. 2. The indisputable facts, in nutshell,. as projected by the petitioners, are that the petjtionersappeared in theB.Com. final examination 2009 in centre No.66 at Korba City College, Korba. It was found that there was a mass copying, in Income Tax paper held on 2-3-2009 in respondent No-2/Korba City College, Korba. Accordingly, by notification dated 22-6-2009 issued by the Registrar of the respondent Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur, the Income Tax paper in B.Com. final examination held ,^:^^^^, ^' "m ^ on 2-3-2009 wascancelled on the ground of mass copying. Thereafter, the petitioners were allowed to appear in the supplementary examination, which took place on 22-8-2009 wherein the petitioners appeared and were found passed as per result published in the web site ofthe respondent University i.e. www.ggu.ac.in 3. In the meantime, the Unfair Means Committee (for short "UFM Committee") was constituted. The UFM Committee in its report dated 8-9-2009 found that there was a mass copying in Income Tax final year paper in Centre No.66 i.e. Korba City College and it was recommended to cancel the entire examination. 4. The Executive Council (for short "EC") considered the recommendation of the UFM Committee in its meeting held on 25/26-9-2009 (Annexure - D/2), filed along with the application for taking additional submission and documents on record dated 21-6-2010, observed that the recommendation of the UFM Committee in respect of mass copying in B.Com.-llt examination, 2009 may be accepted and the result of the concerned paper may be cancelled. When the minutes of the EC meeting held on 25/26-9-2009 came up for confirmation on 14/15-2-2010, after a period of about 5 months, the earlier proceeding wasapproved with modification that B.Com.-lll examination 2009 may be cancelled in its entirety. Consequently, thereupon the Examination Controller (Acting) by notification dated 7-12-2009 cancelled all the examinations of B.Com. mains as well as supplementary examination, 2009, in the centre No.66. Thus, these petitions. ^ . 5. 7. Shri Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that when it was found by the UFM Committee that there was a mass copying in Income Tax paper in the main examination 2009, an action was taken by the Registrar of the respondent University by notification dated 22-6-2009 and the Income Tax paper was cancelled. Thereafter, supplementary examination was directed to be held wherein the petitioners appeared and were declared as successful. The respondent authorities ought not to have taken a decision in the subsequent meeting held in the month of February, 2010 contrary to the earlier decision taken in the month of September, 2009 and cancetled the entire examination of B.Com. final as well as supplementary examination. The decision of the respondent University is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory. On the other hand, Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent University, submits that the final authority to consider the mass copying in examinations is the EC. The EC exercising its power under clause 23 (f) (i) Part-V of Ordinance No.6 on the basis of the UFM Committee took a decision to cancel the entire examination, which was accepted by the EC and accordingly the main and supplementary examinations were cancelled. There is no illegality or irregularity in the decision taken by the EC or thereafter by issuing the notification dated 7-12-2009. On the question of change of decision in the EC meeting held in the month of February, 2010, Shri Shrivastava submits that the minutes of the earlier meeting could have been amended when ^€ g "SSfc ^.fe^ % 1- ^' 8. 9. 10. the same came up for confirmation subsequently. Thus, there is no error in the impugned notification issued by the respondent University. In support of his contention, Shri Shrivastava placed his reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in Union of India and Others v. Anand Kumar Pandey and Others1, Biswa Ranjan Sahoo and Others v. Sushanta Kumar Dinda and Others, Hanuman Prasad and Others v. Union of India and Another3, Chairman, J&K State Board of- Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik and Others and Director (Studies), Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Hotel Management, Nutrition & Catering Technology, Chandigarh and Others v. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan . Shri Varun Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 College submits that there was no mass copying in any paper. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. Admittedly, the UFM Committee has found mass copying in B.Com. final year examination conducted in Centre No.66 i.e. Korba City College, Korba. UFM Committee has not reported mass copying in all other papers, though they have recommended to cancel the entire results of B.Com final examination 2009. There is no mention about cancellation of supplementary examination result. The UFM Committee has not 1 (1994)53cc663 2 (1.996) 5 SCC 365 3 (1996) 10SCC742 4 (2000) 3 SCC 59 5 (2009) 1 SCC 59 €' ::^ 11, 12. assigned any reason for making recommendation to cancel the entire examination when it was held that there was a mass copying in the Income Tax paper only. Before UFM Committee report was submitted, the Registrar of the respondent University, it appears that, by order of Vice Chancellor, has already cancelled the main examination in Income Tax paper and has permitted the petitioners to participate in the supplementary examination. In the supplementary examination, the petitioners appeared and thereafter the result was atso declared. The EC has taken its decision firstly on 25/26-9-2009 wherein it was decided in item No.41 decided to accept the recommendation of UFM Committee in B.Com.-lll and cancelled the concerned subject paper i.e. Income Tax. Retiance of the respondent University on the above stated decisions of the Supreme Court are not relevant to the facts of thecases on hand, as the case of the petitioners is not that the petitioners ought to have been afforded an opportunity of hearing before cancellation of the entire examination or there was no mass copying. In the above cited cases, it has been held that in case where there is mass copying the prindples of natural justice may be dispensed with. That is not the case in the instant petitions. Admittedly there was a mass copying only in Income Tax paper in B.Com. final examination 2009 at Centre No.66. Thereafter, the examination of Income Tax paper was cancetled and the petitioners were permitted to appear in the supplementary examination. The petitioners were declared pass in the /' 13. ^o supplementary examination. The decision of the EC seems to be arbitrary by canceling the entire main as well as supplementary examination. There was a mass copying in one paper and the same was cancelled by the Registrar. Thereafter the petitioners appeared in the supplementary examination and were declared successful. It was not necessary to cancel the entire main as well as supplementary examination. The action ofthe respondent University is contrary to the finding ofthe UFM Committee. It is made clear that the notification dated 22-6-2009 was issued by order under the signature of the Registrar. It means pursuant to the order of the Vice Chancellor, the Registrar has issued the notification. In the result, the writ petitions i.e. W.P. (C) No.7397 of 2009 and W.P. (C) Nos. 233 & 754 of 2010 are allowed. The notification dated 7-12-2009 (Annexure - P/1) issued by the respondent University is quashed. The petitioners are entitled to mark sheets on- the basis of marks obtained by them in the supplementary examination of Income Tax paper held on 22-8-2009. 14. There shall be no order asto costs. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge