;>ii':*SE<- ~"sf.,^ ^ ^ ^y' cfzcw^My Y'^T^ HIOHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Oivision Bench: Appellant Resppndent nics0ondents Hon'bte Shn Dhirendta Mlshra. S Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ Writ Appeal No. 243 of 2010 Guru Ghasidas Vlshwavidyalaya, -Versus- Ku. Anshu Modi and othere -y with Writ Appeal Nos. 244 and 245 of 2010 JUDGMENT FOR CONSIDERATiON Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge KAR. J aLn>-e-s- o Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge Sd/- JUDG ^^•.3.201 H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR Division Bench Appellant RespQndent Respondents Appellant Respondent Respondents Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra IViishra, & Hon'bie Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ Writ Appeal No. 243 of 2010 Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyataya, Centrai University, a body corporate incorporated under the provisions of the Central Universities Act, 2009, Koni, Bilaspur, through its Registrar. -Versus- 1. Ku. Anshu Modi, D/o RS Modi; aged about 31 years, R/o TP Nagar, Korba, District Korba (CG) 2. State of CG, through Secretarii'; Department of Higher Education, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, • District Raipur (CG) 3. Korba City College, Through its Principal, TP Nagar, Korba, District Korba (CG) WritADpeat No. 244 of2010 Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyataya, Central University, a body corporate incorporated under the provisions of the Central Universities Act, 2009, Koni, Bilaspur, through its Registrar. •Versus- 1. Ku. Arti Gurudwan, D/o BP Gurudwan, aged about 22 years, R/o MD/116, Dipka Colony, Gep/a Project, Korba, District Korba (CG) 2. Ku. Deepa Shre Soni D/o Shri RK Sano, aged about 22 years, R/o MD/949, Dipka Colony, Gevra Projeot, Korba, District Korba (CG) 3. Rajesh Prashad Bronwal, S/o RD Prashad Bronwal, aged about 24 years, R/o Urja Nagar, Gevra Project, Korba, District Korba (CG) 4. Jitendra Singh, S/o Shri RK Singh, aged about 20 years, R/o Urja Nagar, Gevra Project, Korba, District Korba (CG) 5. Karan Deep Singh, S/o Shri J. Singh, aged about 22 years, R/o Ward No.1. H.No.36, Darri, Road, Korba, District Korba (CG} 6. Ku. Preeti Jain, D/o Shri Mulchand Jain, aged about 21 years, R/o 450, ICC, TP Nagar, Korba District (CG) 7. Shudhanshu Upadhyay, S/o Shri Ashok Upadhyay, aged about 21 years, R/oWard No.1, Ram Sagarpara, Near Daliya Godown, Korba, District Korba (CG) 8. Brajesh Verma, S/o Shri Kailash Verma, aged about 21 years, R/o C/o Kailash Photo Studio, Power House Road, Korba, District Korba (CG) iv AR@ellant ResBondent Respondents 9. Ankita Sharma, D/o Late Shri Babu Lal Sharma, aged abOLft 21 years, R/o Akansha Bhawan, Dindayal Sharma Sarwamangla Road, Korba, District Korba (CG) 10. Gurmeet Singh, S/o Shri Balwinder Singh, aged about 23 years, R/o MIG 1-B/01, Sharda Bihari Colony, Korba, District Korba (CG) 11. Navneet Tiwari, S/o Balram Tiwari, aged about 21 years, R/o Dipka Road, Korba, District Korba (CG) 12, Nikhil Sehgai, S/o Suresh Sehgal, aged about 23 years, R/o Rani Road, Korba, District Korba (CG) 13. Amar Mishra, S/o Shri BN Mishra, aged about 22 years, R/o Plot No.170, TP Nagar, Korba, Dlstrict Korba (CG) 14. Hosang Agrawal, S/o Shri Sushil Agrawal, aged about 23 years, A/o Agrawat Stores Power House Road, Korba, District Korba (CG) 15. Nisha Bagaria D/o Shri Ajay Bagaria, aged about 23 years, R/o Plot No.359, Indira Commeroila Complex Korba, District Korba (CG) 16. Priya Bondia, D/o Shri Anil Kumar Bondia, Auto.Mobiles 41, TP Nagar, Korba, District Korba (CG) 17. Shana Abbas Khan, S/o Shri MD Abbas Khan, aged about 24 years, R/o Q.No.B-25, SECL, Gevra Project, District Korba (CG) 18. Sharad Kumar Nirala. S/o Shri HMR Nirala, aged about 22 years, Q.No.B-3, Pragati Nagar, Dipka Colony, SECL, Colony, Korba, District Korba (CG) 19. Shikhar Sharma, S/o Shri Indajit Sharma, aged about 22 years, R/o 441 Indira Commercial Complex, TP Nagar, Korba, Distriot Korba (CG) 20. State of CG, through Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) 21. Korba City College, Through its Principal, TP Nagar, Korba, District Korba(CG) Writ Apoeai No. 245 of 2010 Guru Ghasidas Visfcvavidyalaya, Central University, a body corporate incorporated under the provisions of the Central Universities Act, 2069, Koni, Bi!aspur, through its Registrar. -Versus- 1. Ku. Vasanti Singh D/o Shri Pritpal Singh, aged about 21 years, R/o B124, Urja Nagar, Gen/a Project, Korba, District Korba (CG) ^ •f) 2. Ku. Sharda Tiwari, D/o Shri Ghanshyam Prashad Tiwari, aged about 22 years, R/o MQ 152, Dipka Colony, Gevra Project, Korba, District Korba (CG) 3. Ku. Ansuyia Singh D/o Manohar Singh, aged about 22 years, R/o MQ 24, Sakti Nagar, Gevra Project Ko±ia, District Korba (CG) 4. State of CG, through Secretar/, Department of Higher Education, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) 5. Korba City College, Through its Principal, TP Nagar, Korba, District Korba (CG) Present: Mr. Ashish Shrivastava and Mr. Harsh Wardhan, counsel for the appellant/respondent. Mr. Awadh Tripathi, counsel for private respondents-students. Mr. MPS Bhatia, Govt. Advocate for the State. Mr. Jitendra Pali and Ms. Bharti Soni, counsel for respondent-Korba City College. JUDGMENT (^rMarch,2011) Per Dhirendra Mishra^J Writ Appeals No. 243/10, 244/10 & 245/10 are being disposed of by this common judgment as they are directed against the order dated 21 June, 2010 of learned Single Judge, by which Writ Petitions (C) No.7397/2009, 233/2010 and 754/2010 have been allowed and the Notification dated 7 December, 2009 (Annexure P/1) issued by the appellanVuniversity has been quashed, and it has been held that the respondents/students are entitied to mark sheets on the basis of marks obtained by them in the supplementary examination of Income Tax paper heid on 22nd August, 2009. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the respondents/students appeared in B.Com.-ill examination, 2009 in examination center- Korba City College. The examination of Income Tax paper of B.Com.-lll heid on 2nd March, 2009 in the aforesaid center was cancelied on the ground of mass copying vide Notification dated 22.6.2009 issued by the appellant/university. Thereafter, the students were allowed to appear in the supplementary examination, which was held on 22nd August, 2009, in which the respondents appeared and were declared passed, as per resuit pubtished in the webslte of the University. In the meantime, the Unfair Means Committee (in short .""^ s? a "UFM Committee") was constituted and the UFM Comrnittee, in its report dated 8.9.2009, confirmed mass copying in Income Tax final year paper in Center - Korba City College and recommended to cancel the entire examination. The Executive Council (in short "EC"), in its meeting dated 25/26.9.2009 (Annexure D/2), observed that the recommendation of the UFM Committee in respect of mass copying in B.Com.-lli examination, 2009 may be accepted and result of the concerned paper may be cancelted. However, when minutes of the EC meeting came up for confirmation on 14/15.2.2010, after a period of five months, the earlier proceedings were approved with modification that B.Com.-lll examination, 2009 may be cancelied in its entirety. Thereupon, the Examination Controller (Acting) by Notification dated 7.12.2009 cancelled entire examinations of B.Com. mains as we!l as supplementary examination, 2009 of center - Korba City College. Howevsr, the writ petitions fited by the respondents/students have been allowed by the impugned order. 3. Mr. Ashish Shrivastava with Mr. Harsh Wardhan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/university, vehemently argued that the UFM Committee in its report confirmed mass copying in Income Tax paper of B.Com.-lll examination, 2009 and irregularities committed in the Center and held that the case falls under Category C of Reguiation 11 and recommended canceilatlon ofthe entire examination. The University is bound by the statutory provisions and therefore, it had no discretlon but to cancei the entire examination under the facts and circumstances of the case, which is a case of mass copying. The respondents/students have not specificaiiy denied their indulgence in mass copying and in these cireumstances, the tearned Single Judge has erred in law by passing the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents/students, Mr. MPS Bhatia, learned Govt. Advocate for the State, Mr. Jltendra Pali and Ms. Bharti Soni, iearned counsel appearing for the respondent-Korba City College, supporting the impugned order argued that the allegation of mass copying pertains to only in Income Tax paper of B.Com.-lll examination, 2009. The UFIVI Committee has not reported mass copying in all other papers, though they have recommended to cancel the entire resuit of B.Com.-lll examination, 2009. The EC has taken its decision, firstly on 25/26.9.2009 to accept the recommendation of UFM Committee in respect of B.Com.-lll examination, 2009 and to cancel the result of the concerned subject paper i.e. Incqme Tax. However, when minutes ofthe EC j? ^ '^. Committee held on 25/26.9.2009 came up for confirmation on 14/15.2.2010, the earlier proceedings were approved with modification that B.Com.-il! examination, 2009 may be cancelled in its entirety. By that time, the University, vide its Notification dated 22.6.2009 (Annexure P/2), had already declared the result of B.Com.-lll examination, after canceling the examination of Income Tax paper heid on 2 Mareh, 2009 as per recommendations of the Examination Result Committee. The UFM Cornmittee was constituted only after result of the main examination was declared as per decision of She University. The respondents/students were permitted to participate in the suppiementary examination held on 22 August, 2009 and in which they were declared passed. From para-7 of report of the UFM Committee, it appears that the UFM Committee was constituted after 30 August, 2009 when Shri RS Modi - father of respondenVstudent Ku. Anshu Modi - sent a SMS to the Vtee Chancellor and matter was again re-examined and fresh report was obtained as a vindictive measure. 5. Heard iearned counse] for the parties, perused the pleadings of the parties in the writ petition and the documents appended therewlth as also the impugned order. 8. !ndisputably, after receiving the report of mass copying in income Tax paper examination held on 2 March, 2009, the matter was entrusted to Examination Resuit Committee for enquiry and as per recommendation of the said Committee, the University vide Notification dated 22.6.2009 decided to declare the result canceling the examination of Income Tax paper of B.Com.-HI year and further decided to cancel the examination center of Korba City College. it is also not in dispute that in the meanwhile, the respondents/students appeared in the supplementary examination heid by the University on 22" August, 2009 and result of the supplementary examination was also dectared, in which they were successful. It is not clear as to when the UFiVI Committe® was constituted and the matter was entrusted to itfor enquiry and report, though in the minutes ofthe meeting of EC Committee dated 25/26"' Septembsr, 2009, at item No.41, it was resolved to accept the recommendations of the UFM Committee and it was decided to cancel the result of the concerned paper. However, the EC, in its meeting dated 14/15 February, 2010 modified its earlier resoiution and resolved to cance! the result ofB.Com.-ll! examination in its entirety. It is pertinent to mention here that the University, vide its Notification dated 22.6.2009 (Annexure P/2), had already decided to declare the result of _;J i.Com.-lli examination, 2009 of the concemed center after canceling the Income Tax papeF-and aecordingtethe supplementary examination was held and result of the supplementan/ examination was also declared. The University without canceling its earlier decision of declaring the result of i.Com final examtnation and permitting the students to appear in the supplementary examlnation, could not have constituted the UFM Committee. 7. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, we are of the opinion finding of the iearned Single Judge that decision of the EC to cancel the entire main as well as supplementary examination was arbifrary as the same was taken after result of the final examination, 2009 was dedared after canceiing the examination of Income Tax paper and the respondents/students were permitted to appear in the supplementary examination, in which they were, subsequently, declared success'fui, is just ind proper and v/arrants no Interference. There is no substance in these writ appeals, ths same deserve to be and are, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge