IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2009 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 14325 of 2009(I) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ BINIL BABU, AGED 19, S/O.BABU, KOZHIPLACKAL (H), MUNDATHANAM, KANGAZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. MR.B.PREMOD, SMT. RUBY V.J. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, STATE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL & CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT IN-CHARGE, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING, THODUPUZHA. 3. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, M.G.UNIVERSITY, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. 4. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, M.G.UNIVERSITY, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P.N.SANTHOSH R2 TO R4 BY ADV. MR. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.14325/2009 I APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF QUESTION PAPERS FOR 1 & 2 SEMESTERS EXAMIN. P2: COPY OF NOTICE DTD. 21/05/09 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A: COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DTD. 10/07/2009. ANNEXURE B: COPY OF THE MEMO DTD. 3/08/2009 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 14325 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides. 2. The petitioner who is undergoing the B.Tech degree course in Electronics & Communication Engineering appeared for the supplementary first and second semester B.Tech degree examination conducted by the Mahatma Gandhi University on 21.5.2009. On the allegation that he had committed malpractice in the examination held on 21.5.2009, the Chief Superintendent issued Ext.P2 memo dated 21.5.2009 informing the petitioner that he will not be allowed to appear for the remaining papers of the supplementary first and second semester B.Tech degree examination. It appears that the sixth semester B.Tech degree examination was also being held simultaneously. In view of Ext.P2 memo, the petitioner was not permitted to appear for the said examination also. This writ petition was filed on 25.5.2009 challenging Ext.P2 memo and seeking a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear for the remaining papers of the 6th semester B.Tech degree examination. The petitioner challenges Ext.P2 on the ground that due to extraneous reasons, the Principal in charge who was also the Chief Superintendent, has falsely accused him of malpractice committed in the examination held on 21.5.2009. He submits that the Invigilators who W.P.(C) No. 14325/09 2 were supervising the examination have no complaint whatsoever that he had committed malpractice in the examination held on 21.5.2009. 3. By order passed on 25.5.2009, this Court directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear for the remaining papers of the sixth semester examination on a provisional basis. This Court also directed that the result of the examination in so far as it relates to the petitioner need not be published. This Court also directed that the enquiry if any initiated against the petitioner shall be completed within two months from 25.5.2009 and the result of the enquiry placed before this Court. Pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner appeared for the remaining papers of the sixth semester examination. 4. A statement has been filed on behalf of respondents 3 and 4 wherein inter alia it is stated that after Ext.P2 memo was issued, the Principal of the college conducted an enquiry and forwarded Annexure-A enquiry report dated 10.7.2009 to the University. It is also stated that on receipt of Annexure-A report, Annexure-B memo dated 3.8.2009 was issued calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the examinations taken by him should not be cancelled and he should not be debarred from appearing in any University examination earlier than May 2010. It is stated that though Annexure-B memo was served on the petitioner, he has not submitted a reply and that final orders in the matter will bave to be passed W.P.(C) No. 14325/09 3 by the University. 5. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. It is evident from Annexure-B memo produced along with the statement filed on behalf of respondents 3 and 4 that the University proposes to proceed against the petitioner for the malpractice alleged to have been committed in the examination held on 21.5.2009. Statute 3(xxi) of Chapter VI of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes 1997 prescribes the procedure for imposition of punishment in connection with malpractice in University examinations. Statutes 3(xxii) and 3(xxiii) empower the Syndicate to cancel the examinations taken by a candidate and to debar him from appearing at any University examination for a specified period. The procedure to be followed in such matters is also prescribed in the Statutes. The enquiry conducted by the college authorities cannot therefore be a substitute for the procedure prescribed in the Statutes. On going through the writ petition and after hearing the submissions made at the Bar, I am of the opinion that the University should take expeditious steps to finalise the action initiated against the petitioner for the malpractice alleged to have been committed by him in the University examination held on 21.5.2009. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondents 3 and 4 to finalise the proceedings initiated by them W.P.(C) No. 14325/09 4 expeditiously and in any event within two months from today. The petitioner shall, if he has not so far submitted a reply to Annexure B memo, submit his reply within 15 days from today. The entitlement of the petitioner to have the results of the supplementary first and second semester examination and the 6th semester examination declared and to appear for the next higher examinations, will depend on the outcome of the proceedings initiated against him for the alleged malpractice committed in the University examination held on 21.5.2009. The contentions of the petitioner on the merits are kept open. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE vps