sa^i \snq ,c, ./^. .•f'-rV.-'1\ ^ ,/^"'^y-''". ••' ^y ~.^y" 1. -^^ /Harish Patnaik S/o Shri Minketan Patnaik, aged about- 18 years; Student B.A. Part-2, Govt. College, Gharghoda, resident of village- Gharghoda, Ward No.2, Tahsil- Gharghoda, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 2. De Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur through Registrar, Bilaspur (C.G.). Assistant Kulsachiv (Examination) Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur Examination Controller, Bilaspur C.G Government Naveen Principal, {TT'^ia^ &-'• ''-'^ College, Gharghoda Distt. Raigarh (C.G.). ^ Btt^tl^^^^^^^^—SM- 6 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 491 of 2011 PETITIONER : Atul Kumar Goyal & Others. RESPONDENTS VERSUS Gum Ghasidas University & Others. PETITIQNER RE8PONDENTS WRIT PETITION <C1 No. 958 of2011 Hansh Patnaik VERSUS Guru Ohasidas University & Others. WRIT PETITIQN UNDERARTICLE. 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIQN OFINDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri. J. Present: Shri M.K.Sinha Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 to 3. Shri Satish Gupta, Govemment Advocate for State/respondent No. 4. (Delivered on S.^^ay ofMay, 2011) 1. Since W.P. (C) No. 491 and 958 of 2011 involve common facts and question of law, they are being disposed ofby this common order. 2. Challenge in this petition is to the notification dated 01.01.2011 (Annexure P/l) whereby the result ofthe petitioners ofB.A. Part I, Regular, (Economics) II paper, has been cancelled. 3. The brief faets, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioners are that the pedtioners are the students of B.A. Part II pursuing their studies at Govemment Naveen Degree College, Gharghoda, i®S^SS^?SB^.S: 4. District Raigarh. The petitioners participated in B.A. Part I examination for the academic session March-April, 2010 and they were found successful which is evident from Marksheet of B.A. Part I (Annexure P/2). Thereafter, the petitioners were permitted to take admission in B.A. Part II in fhe respondent No. 4-College and began fheir studies on regular basis. The petitioners have deposited admission fee etc. in the respondent No. 4-College. The respondent-University issued a show causenotice (Annexwe- R/l-4 '*..//- and Annexure P/4, respectively) asto why examination of the subject, Economics II paper of B.A. Part I, held on 12.04.2010 may not be cancelled. Reply to the said notice was filed on 09.09.2010 (Annexure P/5 to W.P.(C) No. 958/2011) stating therein that fhey have prepared their answers on the basis ofAjay Mala series but there was no mass copying in fhe examination. Thereafter, the petitioners were directed to deposit the mark sheet of B.A. Part I, issued earlier. As a sequel, by notification dated 01.01.2011 (Annexure P/l), the result ofthe subject Economics, II paper, ofB.A. Part I, was declared as cancelled. Thus, this petition. Shri M-K.Sinha, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that once the petitioners have been declared as 'pass', the cancellation ofthe result ofBA. Part I, Economics, II paper, is an afterthought and the same is illegal. Secondly, ifthere was any mass copying, the result ofthe entire exammation ought to have been cancelled and not of only 18 students of examination centre no. 180 including the petitioners. There was no question of mass copying at all. Further, once the petitioners have taken ^ admission in B.A. Part II and started attendmg classes regularly, the petitioners should not be deprived of appearance in the examination of B.A. Part II as the petitioners would further lose one year on account ofillegal action on Ae part ofthe respondent authorities. 5. Per contra, Shri Ashish Shrivastava, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 to 3 would submit that tfae examination centre No. 68, Navin Ashashkiya Mahavidyalaya, Gharghoda was the examination centre for the students of the said college as well as for the students of exammation centre No. 180. They appeared in the examination alongwith the students of examination centre No. 68. The students of examination centre No. 68 indulged into mass copying in the subject, Economics II paper of B.A. Part I for the academic session March-April,2010. Therefore, the action ofthe respondent-University to cancel the result of the subject, Economics II paper, ofB.A. Part I, ofthe examination centre No. 68, is just and proper. The candidates appearing at Ashashkiya Naveen Degree College, Gharghoda, were found having indulged in group copying. The Examination Superintendent ofExamination Centre No. 68 sent a preliminary information to the Registrar (Confidential) of the respondent-University stating that prima facie, it appears that there was a group copying in (he examination centre from Roll No. 90276 to 90302 and 987291 to 87400 vide communication dated 6.05.2010 (Annexure R/2). The said communication was forwarded to the Chairman, Board of Studies of Economics on 16.06.2010 (Amiexure R/l-3). The Chairman, after examining all the papers came to the conclusion that there was a high probability of mass copying in the said paper by the above-stated candidates. Thereafter, a show cause notice Was issued on 29.7.2010 to all the candidates. The candidates, including the petitioners have submitted their reply and thereafter the matter was referred to Unfair Means Committee (UFM) to enquire into the issue of mass copying at examinadon centre No. 68, wherein the students of examination centre No. 180 l"<d also appeared. The UFM. committee submitted its report on 20.11.2010 (Annexure R/l-5) stating that the answer sheets of Economics II paper of B.A. Part I examination, 2010 were examined by Shri I.P.Dewangan, Assistant Professor, Economics of Govemment College, Katghora, Shri P.K.Dewangan, Assistant Professor, Economics, ofS.N.G. College, Mungeli, who were ofthe opinion that the answer sheets clearly indicate that there was a group copying in the examination centre No. 68 in the above stated subject. Thus, the UFM committee recommended for cancellation oftheresultundercategory'C' ofthe regulation No. 11 (Annexure R/l-6). Thus, thefe was no infirmity, irregularity or jurisdictional error. Shri Shrivastava would further submit that the petitioners were afEbrded opportunity of hearing, thereafter, the experts have examined the answer sheets and it was found that there was a group copying by taking assistance from any book, paper, notes or any other materials in answering the question papers. Shri Shrivastava would next contend that the experts opinion may not be normally ihterfered with, unless contrary is established. 1t 8. Having heard leamedcounsel appearing for the parties, pemsed the pleadings and documents appended thereto, the facts, as aforestated appears to be correet. The petitioners and other similarly situated candidates were issued show cause notice on 29.07.2010 as is evident from Annexure R/l-4 wherein a list of candidates is annexed. Response to the show cause notice fortifies the stand of the respondents that the petitioners were afforded opportunity of hearing before the decision was taken by the respondeat-University. The action was taken on behalf of Superintendent of Examination Centre No. 68 where the students of examination Centre No. 180 had also participated and on the basis of report submitted by Assistant Professor, Shri I.P.Dewangan to the Registrar (Confidential) of the respondent University, the Chairman of fhe Board of Studies ofEconomics, had also examined the entire case and expressed fhe same opinion. Thereafter, the matter was referred to 'the UFM Committee whieh got the answer sheets examined by two experts ofthe subject who had unanimously and clearly opined that it was a case of group copying and the same deserves to be cancelled under the provisions of category 'C' of the Regulation No. 11 (Annexure R/l-6). Contention ofleamed counsel for fhe petitioners that this was not a ease of category 'C', as there is no proof that the students had taken any asslstance from book, paper, notices etc. in answering the questipn papers during fhe course of examination, fails, on the ground that ifthe answer sheets are common indicating similar sets of information, it would amount to group copying under category 'C' ofthe Regulation No. 11. Thus, cancellation ofthe result of subject Economics, II paper of B.A. Part I, under categoiy 'C' of the Regulation No. II, was just and proper. 9. Law on the issue with regard to interference of the Court in the opinion formed by the experts of the subject in the field, is well settled. 10. The Supreme Court, in Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal , observed as under: "32. It is not unimportant to point out that in matters of appointment in the academic field the court generally does not interfere. In the University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao, this Court observed that the courts should be slpw to interfere with the opinion expressed by the experts in the absence of mala fide alleged against the experts. When appointments are based on recommendations of experts nominated by the Universities, the High Court has got only to see whether the appointment had contravened any statutory or binding mle or ordinance. The High Court should show due regard to the opinion expressed by the experts constituting the Selection Committee and its recommendation on which the Chancellor has acted. See also the decisions in J.P. Kulshreshtha v. Chancellor, Allahabad University, Raj Bhavan and Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. B.S. Mahajan." 11. In Secy. (Health) Deptt. of Health & F.W. v. Anita Puri (Dr)2, the Supreme Court observed as under: "7. Admittedly, in the advertisement which was published calling for applications from the candidates for the posts of Dental OfBcer it was clearly stipulated that the minimum qualification for the post is B.D.S. It was also stipulated that prefe nce should be given for higher dental qualification. There is also no dispute that M.D.S. is • (1990)28cc 746 2 (1996) 6 SCC 282 a higher qualification than the mmimum qualification required for the post and Respondent 1 was having that degree. The question then arises is whether a person holding a M.D.S. qualification is entitled to be selected and appointed as ofright by virtue ofthe aforesaid advertisement conferring preference for higher qualification? The answer to the aforesaid question must be in the negative. When an advertisement stipulates a particular qualification as the minimum qualification for the post and further stipulates that preference should be given for higher qualification, the only meaning it conveys is that some additional weightage has to be given to the higher qualified candidates. But by no stretch of imagination it can be constmed to mean that a higher qualified person automatically is entitled to be selected and appointed. In adjudgmg the suitability of person for the post, the expert body like Public Service Commission in the absence of any statutory criteria has the discretion of evolving its mode of evaluation of merit and selection of the candidate. The competence and merit ofa candidate is adjudged not on the basis ofthe qualification he possessesbut also taking into account the other necessaiy factors like career of flie candidate throughout his educational curriculum, experience in any field ia which the selection is going to be held, his general aptitude for the job to be ascertained in course of interview, extracurricular activities like sports and other allied subjects, personality of the candidate as assessed in the interview and all other germane factors which the expert body evolves for assessing the suitability ofthe candidate for the post for which the selection is going to be held. In this view of the matter, the High Court in our considered opinionwas wholly in error in holding that a M.D.S. qualified person like Respondent 1 was entitled to be selected and appointed when the Govemment indicated in the advertisement that higher qualification person would getsome preference. The said conclusion oftheHigh Court, fherefore, is wholly unsustainable and must be reversed. 12. Further, in Bihar Public Service Commission v. Kamini, the Supreme Court observed as under: "8. Again, it is well settled that m the field of education, a court of law cannot act as an expert. Normally, therefore, whefher or not a student/ candidate possesses requisite qualifications, should better be left to educational institutions (vide (2007) 5 SCC 519 13. Unlversity of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao). This is particularly so when it is supported by an Expert Committee. The Expert Committee considered the matter and observed that a person can be said to be Honours in the subject ifat the graduate level, he/she studies suchsubject as the principal subject having eight papers and not a subsidiary, optional or side subject having two papers. Such a decision, in QUT judgment, cannot be termed arbitrary or otherwise objectionable. The leamed Single Judge, in our opinion, was, therefore, right in dismissing the petition relying upon the report ofthe Committee and in upholding the objection of the Commission. The Division Bench was in error in ignoring the well- considered report of the Expert Committee and in setting aside the decision ofthe leamed Single JudgB. The Division Bench, while allowing the appeal, observed that the "litmus test" was the admission granted to the first respondent by the Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai. According to the Division Bencfa, if fhe first respondent did not possess Bachelor of Scienee degree with Zoology, the Institute would not have admitted her to the said course. The Division Bench observed that not only the first respondent was admitted to the said course, she had passed it with "flying colours". In our opinion, the Division Bench was not right in applying "litmus test" of admission of the first respondent by the Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai. The controversy before the Court was whether the first respondent was eligible for the post of District Fisheries OfGcer, Class H. The correct test, therefore, was not admission by the Mumbai Institution. If the requirement was of Honours in BSc with Zoology and if the first respondent had cleared BSc Honours with Chemistry, it could not be said that she was eligible to the post having requisite educational ; qualifications. By not treating her eligible, therefore, the Commission had not committed any illegality." In Om Prakash Singh v. Union of India , the Supreme Court observed as under; 20. In the instant case, the Medical Board has given unanimous opinion that the disease of the appellant was neifher attnbutable to nor aggravated by the military service. The findings of the Medical Board have been accepted by the Division Bench of the High Court. Thus, in our considered opinion, no interference is called for. 4(2010)12SCC667 14. There is no allegation ofmalaflde against the experts nor have they been impleaded as party respondents. The petitioners have further failed to establish that their opinion was not coirect and as such, this Court refrains from mterfering with the expert's opinion in the subject to tfae effect that there was a group copying in respect of answer sheets ofthe petitioners in the subject Economics, II paper ofB.A.PartI. 15. Applying the well settled principles oflaw to the facts ofthe cases on hand, no interference is warranted with the norification dated 01.01.2011 (Annexure P/l) and both the petitions deserve to be and are accordingly dismissed. However, it is (jirected that the petitioners may be permitted to write supplementary examination in the concemed subject on an application being made by the petitioners, to avoid loss ofyearto the petitioners. 16. There shall be no ordei asto costs. Sdl- ,„ s.^^.nihot" Judge