LexGURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY AND ANR. versus HARJINDER SINGH AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY AND ANR. v. HARJINDER SINGH AND ANR. JULY 14, 1994 [KULDIP SINGH, R.M. SAHAI AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.) Gwu Nanak Dev University Ca/endm 1991: Volume-11-l'art- B--Or- dinances lO(h) and (j), 11and13. A B Examination-Use of unfair means by eraminee-Subject expert con- C firming copying from incriminating material-Standing Committee also found the answen verbatim 'from incriminating material-Charge of using unfair means held proved-Definition under Ordinance 10 held inclusive and not exhaustive-Coven use of unfair means by any Act or omissiolt-Non- recovery of incriminating material from possession of candidate held of no D consequence. The respondents appeared in B.A. Part-II English (C) Examination at Ramgarbia College, Pbagwara Centre, Punjab. On the examination day, the Oying squad visited the centre and found that there was total cbaose in the examination ball and many students possessed incriminating E material and on seeing the members of the Oying squad they started throwing away the same in between the lines of the desks. Accordingly, the In-charge of the Oying squad reported the matter to the University. Apart from the report of the Oying squad the university also received a specific complaint accompanied by carbon copies, printed material and photo-stat F copies of the band written slips with the allegations that the candidates made use of the material while giving answers to the question papers. Therefore, the university decided to enquire into the matter and accord- ingly sent the answer books to the subject expert for bis scrutiny who confirmed the allegations contained in the complaint and found that the respondents bad copied from the incriminating material. Accordingly, the G respondents were charged for using unfair means in the examination under Ordinance lO(h) and 0) read with Ordinance 11 and 13 of the Guru Nanak Dev University Calendar Volume II (1991). The respondents were given opportunity to meet the charges before the Standing Committee of the University but the Committee was not satisfied with the replies sub- H 671 672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. A milted by the respondents. Besides the Standing Committee also found that the answers written by the respondents were verbatim from the incriminating material. Consequently the Standing Committee held the respondents guilty of using unfair means in the examination and dis- qualified them for two years from appearing in any examination of the B University. The respondents filed a petition before Punjab and Haryana High Court which quashed the order stating' that the decision of the University was based on no material and the provisions of Ordinance were not applicable to the case in question because (i) there was no material before the Committee that the respondents received any help from any source and merely because the answers to some questions in the answer C sheet tallied with some material will not prove that candidate had received help from inside or outside; (ii) no incriminating material was received from the respondents. Against the decision of High Court, University preferred the present appeal. Allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of the High D Court, this Court E F HELD : 1. The High" Court fell into patent error in .quashing the proceedings of the standing committee and the consequent orders of the University. [678-A] 2. The charge against the respondents is covered by Ordinance lO(j) and 13 of the University Ordinances. The definition of 'Unfair means' in Ordinance 10 is on the face of it inclusive and not exhaustive. The menace of copying has already reached an alarming stage and in fact is a disgrace to our education system. There is no end to the Ingenuity in discovering new techniques and methods of copying iu the examination . halls. It is not, therefore, possible to give an exhaustive definition of 'unfair means'. Or- dinance 10 covers use of unfair means in or in re1ation to the examination by any act or omission on the part of the candidate. It may be covered by any of the instances given in clauses (a) to (k) of Ordinance 10 or even other- G wise. So long as the university has communicated the charge to the can- didate in clear terms and has given him opportunity to defend, the candidate cannot be heard to say that be is not guilty simply because be is not covered by any of the clauses in Section 10 of the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.