IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 21ST MARCH 2011 / 30TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 4411 of 2011(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MAKBUL HUSSAIN K.A, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL VAHAB, KATTUNGAL HOUSE, PULLOOT PO THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE SRI.A.V.JOJO RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY PO PIN 673 635. 2. THE PRINCIPAL, IES COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, CHITTILAPPILLY PO, THRISSUR PIN 680 551. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No.4411 OF 2011 ......................................................................... Dated this the 21st March , 2011 J U D G M E N T The prayers in the writ petition are the following: “i. Call for the records pertaining to Exhibit P9 and quash that part of Exhibit P-9 which cancelled the VIth Semester Examination as a whole by issuing a Writ of Certiorari; ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1st respondent not to compel the petitioner to write entire examination of VIth Semester B.Tech Engineering , except Economic (EC 04601) iii. Issue such other reliefs that this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of Ext. P9 order passed by the University on 11.01.2011, whereby the punishment imposed on the petitioner in respect of the alleged malpractice in connection with the examination written by the W.P.(C) No.4411 OF 2011 2 petitioner has been cancelled in toto, however permitting him to appear VIth Semester B.Tech examinations of the University from December, 2010 examination as well, i.e., deleting the sentence 'to debar him from taking the examinations till June, 2011. 3. The sequence of events is as follows: The petitioner appeared for the examination in the particular paper-EC04 601 of the Sixth Semester of B.Tech examination of June, 2009. After completing the examination, when the petitioner was about to leave the examination hall , the invigilator noted a calculator with cover, which apparently contains some notes scribbled on the cover , leading to further proceedings, as borne by Ext.P1 memo in respect of the alleged malpractice. The petitioner being aggrieved of the same approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) 21647 of 2010 , whereby disciplinary proceedings were ordered to be completed within a specified time. This led to issuance of Ext. P4 memo, which was replied by the petitioner as per Ext.P5. In the course of further W.P.(C) No.4411 OF 2011 3 proceedings, an enquiry was conducted by the University through the competent authority, who is a Member of the Syndicate, who investigated the matter and submitted Ext.P7 report. Paragraph 2 of the said report and the conclusion reached are very relevant, which hence are extracted below: “2. But the calculator was not sent to the University from the College. So I went to the college on 06.09.2010. With the help of Smt. Neethu S. Arackal, Lecturer in Department of Economics and Humanities examined the pencil writings over the cover of the calculator. The matter was not fully visible and so difficult to read. A written statement (No.2) was given by Smt. Neethu S. Arackal. In the statement she point out mainly that nothing was copied from the calculator cover to the answer script. Conclusion: In view of the above facts it was found that nothing was copied by the student to the answer script from the cover of the calculator on which something was written and bringing the materials related to the topic of the examination in the examination hall itself is the violation of rules.” W.P.(C) No.4411 OF 2011 4 After considering the said report, the University passed Ext. P9 order, whereby the original proposal to debar the petitioner from taking the examinations till June, 2011 was modified and he was permitted to appear for examinations from December, 2010. However, the decision to cancel all the examinations written by the petitioner was upheld. The petitioner has approached this court challenging the said decision. 4. The University has filed a counter affidavit seeking to justify the proceedings culminated in Ext. P9, pointing out that, whether the petitioner could make use of the material brought by him to the examination hall is not relevant and the factum of brining of such material Having been admitted, the punishment imposed is well within the four walls of law. 1. 5. However, going by the contents of Ext. P7 report ( extracted herein before), it is evident that the enquiring authority/member of the Syndicate observed that the particular calculator was not sent to the University from the College, under which circumstances, he visited the college on 06.09.2010 and with the help of a Lecturer in the department of Economics and Humanities examined the pencil writings W.P.(C) No.4411 OF 2011 5 over the cover of the calculator, which revealed that the matter was not fully visible and so difficult to read. It was also noted by the Enquiring Authority that the concerned Lecturer had given a statement in writing pointing out that, nothing was copied from the calculator cover to the answer script, which led to the final conclusion observing that nothing was copied by the student to the answer script from the cover of the calculator on which something was written. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances, the crucial question to be considered is whether anything contained in the so called 'cover' was readable or legible to have it copied, besides the fact that there is a positive finding that nothing was copied. The alleged misconduct on the part of the petitioner in bringing such material to the examination hall has to be analysed in the said circumstances. Since the contents of the cover were not legible or readable by the Lecturer or by the Enquiring Authority, the said fact remains to be equally applicable to the petitioner W.P.(C) No.4411 OF 2011 6 as well and nothing could have been read out or copied from the cover. As it stands so, this Court finds that the punishment imposed and confirmed by Ext.P9 requires to be modified. In the above circumstances, the decision to cancel all the examinations of sixth semester is set aside. It is declared that the petitioner is entitled to have the reliefs sought for under prayer No.2. Ext. P9 passed by the University will stand modified. The University shall publish the result of the petitioner in respect of other papers forthwith. The Writ Petition is allowed to the above extent. No cost. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. W.P.(C) No.4411 OF 2011 7 lk