Son Pal Gupta v. University Of Agra

1. The petitioner was a student of Agra University and passed his B.A Part I examination from the University in the year 1953-1954 from Agra College Agra. He pursued his studies in B.A Part in 1956-1957 and also appeared in April 1957 for ??? final examination. He appeared at all the papers ??? for the examination but his result was ??? and in July, 1957 he was informed by the University that his examination had been cancelled ??? he had also been debarred from appearing at ??? examination of the University for the year 1958 ??? he used unfair means in the examination held ??? 1957. The facts leading to the cancellation of his examination as well as to his disqualification for appearing in the examination in 1958 were that ??? the examination of 1957 the invigilator on ??? at the examination centre where the petitioner had been allotted his seat found from his possesion a certain paper from which he was found to ??? copying. This chit was taken possession of by ??? invigilator who also asked the petitioner to give ??? statement with respect to it but he (the petitioner) declined to do so.

2. This last fact is not admitted by the petitioner ??? that he had been asked to make statement ??? he declined, but the affidavit filed on behalf ??? the opposite party contains an averment to that effect and there is no reason why that statement should not be accepted. After the invigilator had ??? possession of the chit and also asked the petitioner as aforesaid, the chit along with his own ??? was sent to the University which in due course ??? enquiries from the examiner also.

3. The examiner reported in the affirmative to ??? effect that the candidate appeared to have made ??? of the writing on the chit. The chit had on ??? answers to the first two questions written. The examiner's report and the report of the invigilator ??? other papers were ultimately placed before the ??? Chancellor who decided that the petitioner's examination result of B.A Part II be cancelled and ??? he be further debarred from appearing in the University examination of 1958.

4. Admittedly, no opportunity was given to the petitioner to explain the conduct imputed to him ??? the Vice Chancellor when making the above order against him. The petitioner has accordingly ??? this petition asking a writ of certiorari quashing the order aforesaid by the Vice Chancellor on ??? ground that it infringed the principles of natural ??? inasmuch as no opportunity was given to him ??? explain his conduct or to meet the allegations ??? to him. On behalf of the University it is of admitted that an opportunity to explain his ??? was not allowed to the petitioner.

5. The University relies on the fact that the Assistant Superintendent of Examinations Agra College had at the time of the recovery of the chit from the petitioner's possession asked him to give a statement which however he declined hence it is said that an opportunity was given to him but he-himself did not avail of it.

6. The order passed by the Vice Chancellor cancelling the petitioner's examination and debar-f ring him from the examination of 1958 was an administrative order is not disputed. The petitioner's contention nevertheless is that even administrative orders when they have far reaching effects on the rights and careers of individuals as in the present case, it is obligatory on the authority making the order to observe the rules of natural justice and not condemn a man without giving him an opportunity of being heard.

7. There can be no doubt that the cancellation of the petitioner's examination of 1957 and debarring him from the examination of 1958 will affect his education and career in several ways. It is not necessary to state the various disadvantages to which he may become subject thereby as Dr. Asthana appearing for the other side has not challenged this-part of the petitioner's case. The main answer on which the University has taken its stand is that an opportunity was given to the petitioner soon after the chit was recovered from his possession and, if no explanation was before the Vice Chancellor when he made the order, the fault lay with the petitioner himself.

8. It does appear that the petitioner was asked by the Assistant Superintendent of Examinations to-make a statement and he declined. I do not for a moment doubt this fact but the question may further arise whether this conduct of the petitioner satisfied the requirements of natural justice which-obliged the party making the order to give an opportunity to the other party of being heard. It is not clear from the affidavit filed on behalf of the University whether any facts were placed by the Assistant Superintendent before the petitioner or his attention invited to any answers etc. contained in his answer book and to the writings found on the chit.

9. The nature of explanation asked from him is thus not clear. All that one knows is that he was asked to make a statement which he declined.

10. After this the Assistant Superintendent prepared his report, sent it to the authorities concerned who in their turn obtained the comments of the examiner also. There is no suggestion that the petitioner was at any subsequent time acquainted with the report of the Assistant Superintendent or of the comments from the examiner. The Vice Chancellor in making his order debarring the petitioner as aforesaid obviously based his decision on these reports.

11. No doubt, he must have been guided in that also by the fact that the petitioner had declined to, make statement when asked but that fact is, to my mind, of little avail in this case firstly, because one does not know what was the nature of explanation then asked and, secondly, because an opportunity to be heard can be said to be such an opportunity only where the material against the person is disclosed to him. Neither the examiner's comments, nor the report of the Assistant Superintendent, was ever communicated to the petitioner.

12. The so called opportunity given by the Assistant Superintendent at the time of discovery of the chit cannot thus be said to be an opportunity which will meet the requirements of natural justice. The order passed by the Vice Chancellor must under the circumstances be held to have been passed ex parte. It infringed the rules of natural justice and therefore cannot be sustained. In view of the findings that no opportunity was given to the petitioner before making the order but one was necessary, the order of the Vice Chancellor, a copy whereof is Annexure A, must be quashed and I order accordingly. I however make no order as to costs.

R.G.D

13. Petition allowed.