AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
The petitioner was caught using unfairmeans in the examination in question and consequently his results have been cancelled. He has further been debarred from appearing in the future examinations on the ground that this use of unfairmeans disentitles him to appear in the future examination.
Sri Vivek Varma contends that the University has the authority and power to pass such an order of debarment and the contention of the petitioner that it is in excess of the powers of the University is incorrect.
Sri Varma has produced the norms for deciding the case of unfairmeans and awarding punishment to such candidate as decided by the University in the Notification/resolution dated 15.5.2008. The clauses as contained in the said norms do indicate that the power is possessed by the University for debarring a candidate if any material has been found in possession of the candidate or has been collected nearby his seat and there is a report of the examiner of the use of such material. The words used in clause4 are that a candidate "may" be further debarred for one year.
As against the said clause, clause No.5 indicates that if such material was either swallowed by the candidate or sought to be destroyed by him then the candidate has to be debarred for the following year.
The distinction in both the clauses is, therefore, clear and the power of debarment under clause 4 is optional to the University keeping in view the material found and its use by the candidate.
In the light of above, I am of the opinion that so far as the case of the use of unfairmeans is concerned, the petitioner has not been able to make out any case so as to set aside the order of the University cancelling his examination.
However, so far as the debarment part is concerned, in the event the petitioner has not attempted to destroy the material or swallow it, then the University has the option to either debar the candidate or to allow him to appear in future examination. The University may, therefore, reconsider this aspect of the matter in the light of clause4 of the said norms as produced by Sri Vivek Varma and is quoted herein below: "4. In case where the material/hand written/printed/material readable by laser light pen or of any type was found in possession of the candidate or has been collected nearby his seat and the examiner reports that the candidate has used it, the examination of the year be cancelled and he "may" be further debarred for one year."
The University shall pass an appropriate order in this regard as expeditiously as possible preferably within 8 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.