Case: The Vice-Chancellor, Utkaluniversity And Others Vs. S. K. Ghosh And Others

3. That facts are as follows. The first M.B.B.S. Examination of the University included Anatomy as one of its subjects. This examination was divided into three parts. The theoretical portion which was written, was fixed for the 9th and 10th of April 1951. The practical was fixed for the 19th and the viva voce for the 20th .At 7 oclock on the morning of the 9th before the examination began, a member of the Senate was told that there had been a leakage of the questions and he was given a paper which was entitled "hints". He at once contacted three other members of the Senate and handed over copies of these "hints" to them. The three members were Mr. Justice Jagannadhadas, Mr. Pradhan, the director of Public Instruction in Orissa, and Mr. Lingaraj Misra, the Minister for Education. The Vice-Chancellor was not informed at the time and no further action was taken. The examination proceeded as scheduled on the dates fixed.The Vice-Chancellor was informed on the 19th. He at once asked Lt. Col: Papatla, the Principal of the Medical College, to look into the matter. This was done and Lt. Col. Paptla submitted a report on the 20th. He compared the "hints" with the question paper and considered that the similarity between them justified the conclusion that there had been a leakage.It so happened that an ordinary meeting of the University Syndicate had been called for the 21st to consider certain other matters. This question was not on the agenda but the last item was, "other matters, ifThe Vice-Chancellor presided and he told the members present what had happened. He had already prepared a note about this on the 21st before the meeting began. After setting out the facts the note concludedrequest the Syndicate to discuss the matter as it is an important and urgent one before taking up the publication of M.B.B.S. results which are also ready, though the subject is not in the Agenda.The report of the Board of Examiners setting out the results of the examination was received on the morning of the 21st some time before the meeting. It showed that thirty seven students had appeared for the examination in question. Of these, twenty seven passed and ten failed in the written examination and the same ten, plus one other (making eleven), failed in the practical and viva voce tests. In the result, elevent of the thirty seven failed and twenty six passed. The petition for mandamus was made by the twenty six who had passed and eight who failed: thirty four in all.The Syndicate heard Lt. Col. Papatla at length and also examined three other persons, namely, Mr. Bhairab Chandra Mahanty, who first gave the information, Dr. R. K. Mahanty, the internal examiner for the M.B.B.S. and Dr. S. M. Banerjee, President of the Board of Examiners. (Two members of the Syndicate were experts in Anatomy, namely Lt. Col. Papatla and Dr. S. N. Acharya, the Civil Surgeon). After carefully considering the question for some six hours, the members present passed the followingafter enquiry, the Syndicate is satisfied that there has been leakage of questions in Anatomy and that the result in Anatomy examination be cancelled and that another examination in the subject be held commencing from the 7th May 1951.The Syndicate consists of twelve members. Of these, all but one Mr. Pradhan, the Director of Public Instruction, were present at the meeting. Those present passed the resolution unanimously. It is admitted that Mr. Pradhan was not told that this was one of the matters which would be considered at the meeting. This is one of the grounds on which the validity of this resolution is attacked.11. The successful candidates entered a protest against the resolution and asked the Syndicate to reconsider its decision. This was on the 26th. The Vice-Chancellor had already called another meeting of the Syndicate for the 28th to consider other matters. Once again, this was not placed on the agenda but the Vice-Chancellor brought it up suo motu as before. Again, eleven of the twelve were present but this time the absentee was Dr. M. Mansinha who had approved of the previous resolution. The former absentee, Mr. Pradhan, was present at this meeting. For a second time the decision was unanimous and all eleven refused to review the former resolution. It is admitted that Dr. Mansinha who was not there did not know that this question would be considered again.12. The learned High court Judges held that the want of notice in the two cases invalidated the resolutions. They examined the facts for themselves and concluded that even if the evidence is sufficient to indicate a possibility of some leakage, there was "no justification for the Syndicate to pass such a drastic resolution in the absence of proof of the quantum and the amplitude of leakage". They held that the Syndicate had acted unreasonably and without due care. They therefore issued a mandamus directing the Syndicate to take steps for the publication of the results.13. The Vice-Chancellor and the others

Reasoning:
The substance is more important than the form and if there is substantial compliance with the spirit and substance of the law we are not prepared to let an unessential defect in form defeat what is otherwise a proper and valid resolution. We, however, confine our remarks to the facts of this case where there was actual apperance without objection at meetings properly convened and where there was complete unanimity on both occasions. Where it would be proper to reach the same conclusion when there is a dissentient voice we are not prepared to say. In our opinion, the High Court was wrong in holding that the two resolutions were invalid. Whatever may be thought about each taken separately, the defects, If any, are in our judgment, cured when the two are read together and regarded as alearned Judges rightly hold that in a mandamus petition the High Court cannot constitute itself into a Court of appeal from the authority against which the appeal is sought, but having said that they went on to do just what they said they could not. The learned Judges appeared to consider that it is not enough to have facts established from which a leakage can legitimately be inferred by reasonable minds but that there must in addition be proof of its quantum and amplitude though they do not indicate what the yard-stick of measurement should be. That is a proposition to which we are not able toquestion was one of urgency and the Vice-Chancellor and the members of the Syndicate were well within their rights in exercising their discretion in the way they did. It may be that the matter could have been handled in some other way, as, for example, in the manner the learned Judges indicate, but it is not the function of Courts of law to substitute their wisdom and discretion for that of the persons to whose judgment the matter in question is entrusted by the law.The University authorities acted honestly as reasonable and responsible men confronted with an urgent situation are entitled to act. They had experts or their own on their body. They examined others who in their opinion might throw light on the incident. They themselves compared the two papers and, after a deliberation of some six hours, arrived at an unanimous decision and then they reviewed the matter afresh at a second meeting with the assistance of one of their number who was not present on the first occasion. It is inaccurate to describe that as haste and unjust to characterise their action as unreasonable and lacking due care. This is decidedly not the sort of case in which a mandamus ought tothe status quo which would result from our setting aside of the High Courts order were to be resumed it would mean that those students would be put back to where they were two and a half years ago and would be compelled to do the courses which they have already covered all over again.