L.N MITTAL, J.
Plaintiffs No. 1, 2 and 4 have filed this second appeal after the plaintiffs (appellants and proforma respondent No. 3-Rahul-plaintiff No. 3) have been non-suited by both the Courts below. Rahul-plaintiff No. 3 has filed separate RSA No. 1445 of 2010.
By this common judgment, I am also disposing of RSA No. 1562 of 2010 titled Vinod Kumar v. CCS HAU Hisar, RSA No. 1279 of 2010 titled Ravinder Kumar v. Ch. Charan Singh HAU, Hisar, RSA No. 1445 of 2010 titled Rahul v. CCS HAU Hisar and RSA No. 2639 of 2010 titled Anoop Singh v. CCS HAU Hisar, in addition to the instant RSA No. 1352 of 2010 titled Parikshit Bhardwaj v. Ch. Charan Singh HAU, Hisar because all these appeals involve common questions.
These cases pertain to admission to the course of BV. Sc. and AH in defendant No. 1-University at Hisar for academic session 2007-08. Entrance test for admission to the said course was held on 16.06.2007 Plaintiffs were admitted to the said course in first counseling held on 11.07.2007, on the basis of merit of the said entrance test. However, on receipt of an anonymous complaint that some students got admission to the course by impersonation in the entrance test, a committee was constituted. The committee found the cases of about 30 students to be suspicious. For the same, the committee took assistance of Mr. Shamsher Singh Malik, handwriting expert. The said expert examined disputed signatures of the students on their admit cards, attendance sheet of entrance test and OMR sheet of the test with their standard signatures on the application forms and on the undertakings given by the students at the time of counseling. The said expert found the cases of 15 students (including all the seven appellants herein) to be of impersonation in the entrance test.
Show-cause notices dated 28.07.2007 were issued to the said 15 students. Suits were filed to challenge the said show-cause notices. Pursuant to interim orders passed by the trial Court, defendant No. 1-University held regular enquiry by constituting a committee headed by Mr. Hari Ram, District and Sessions Judge (retired). The said committee gave enquiry report against the students. Consequently admission of the said students to the course was cancelled and they were also debarred from seeking admission to any course of the University for two subsequent academic sessions of 2008-09 and 2009-10. By amending the plaints, the plaintiffs challenged the enquiry report and the aforesaid punishment orders also. Necessary relief of declaration and injunction was claimed.
The defendants pleaded that the impugned punishment orders have been rightly passed after holding enquiry and giving proper opportunity to the plaintiffs. Various other pleas were also raised.
Both the Courts below have dismissed the suits of the plaintiffs who have, therefore, filed these second appeals.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the case files including relevant parts of the bulky files of the Courts below.
Counsel for the appellants contended that flying squad of the University had also inspected the examination centre of the plaintiffs and had caught six impersonators who were impersonating for candidates in the entrance test, but plaintiffs herein were not caught by the flying squad. It was argued that there were photographs of the candidates taking the entrance test on their admit cards and the invigilators had compared the faces of the candidates taking the entrance test with the photographs on their admit cards and, therefore, it cannot be said that there was impersonation of the plaintiffs herein in the entrance test by someone else. In this regard, reference was also made to cross-examination of Dr. B.S Juneja, DW-5 who was one of the invigilators in one of the rooms of the concerned examination centre. He has stated that they had compared the faces of all the students by cursory glance with their photographs on the admit cards. It was also argued that both the parties have examined handwriting experts who have given opinions in favour of the party examining the expert and, therefore, benefit should be given to the students, particularly because science of comparison of signatures/handwriting is not perfect science. It was submitted that the plaintiffs have been punished merely on the basis of report of handwriting expert Mr. Shamsher Singh Malik. In this context, it was pointed out that admittedly there is no direct evidence to depict that the plaintiffs were being impersonated in the entrance test by somebody else. It was also submitted that specimen signatures of the plaintiffs were not taken for comparison by the handwriting expert Mr. Shamsher Singh Malik.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants (the University and its Registrar by name) contended that although allegation of bias and malafide was made against defendant No. 2 Registrar by name who allegedly wanted to get admitted his favourites by expelling the plaintiffs, there is no evidence to substantiate the same nor there is evidence to depict that any such favourite student was admitted in place of plaintiffs. It was thus argued that there was no bias or malafide intention on the part of the defendants and fair enquiry was held before passing the impugned punishment orders. It was pointed out that due opportunity of hearing and defending was given to the plaintiffs. It was argued that initially preliminary enquiry was held by constituting committee which also took assistance of handwriting expert. The said committee found cases of 30 students to be suspicious on preliminary scrutiny and the same were referred to handwriting expert who, however, opined that out of 30 cases, signatures of only 15 students did not tally and thus 15 students had been impersonated and action was taken accordingly against them only and that too after holding regular enquiry thereafter. The committee constituted to hold regular enquiry was headed by District and Sessions Judge (retired). It was also pointed out that even expert witness examined by plaintiffs has found dissimilarities in disputed signatures of the plaintiffs when compared with their standard signatures. Counsel for respondents also contended that there is concurrent finding by both the Courts below against the plaintiffs and the said finding is not perverse or illegal and, therefore, in second appeal, the said finding is not liable to be set aside because courts below have taken reasonable and possible view of the evidence on record.
I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Emphatic contention of counsel for the appellants that the appellants were not detected by the flying squad and that there is no direct evidence against them, does not carry much weight on proper scrutiny although on first blush, it may sound very attractive and forceful. Counsel for the appellants pointed out that faces of the candidates taking the entrance test had been compared with their photographs on the admit cards and, therefore, there was no reasonable scope for impersonation. The contention is untenable. The flying squad caught six impersonators, although the invigilators had admittedly not detected them on comparison of faces of the candidates taking the entrance test with photographs on the admit cards. It would depict that there was lapse on the part of the invigilators, intentionally or inadvertently. Even Dr. B.S Juneja, DW-5 (invigilator), to whose cross-examination reference was made by the counsel for the appellants, has simply stated in cross-examination that they had compared the faces with admit cards by ‘cursory glance’. It is thus apparent that the invigilators were not very careful in making the said comparison. It is correct that the appellants herein were not detected being impersonated by somebody else while taking entrance test and, therefore, there is no direct evidence of their impersonation at the test. However, if like other six impersonators, cases of the appellants being impersonated by somebody else had been detected at the time of test itself, there would have been no controversy at all in that event. However, it cannot be said that there was no impersonation for the appellants in the entrance test, merely on the ground that their cases were not caught red handed.
In the aforesaid context, it is significant to notice that initially preliminary enquiry was held by a committee which found cases of 30 students to be suspicious. The same were referred to handwriting expert who, however, gave opinion against 15 students only out of 30 cases referred to him. This circumstance itself would show that the expert Mr. Malik has not given opinion against the students merely because he had been engaged by the University. On the contrary, this circumstance would depict that he has given correct, fair and impartial opinion. Even otherwise, the University had no personal bias against the appellants herein so as to obtain false or doctored report against them from the handwriting expert. Rather the usual observation that handwriting expert gives opinion in favour of the party engaging him would go against the plaintiffs/appellants because their expert has given opinion in all the cases in their favour.
The contention of counsel for appellants that specimen signatures of the students were not taken for comparison with their disputed signatures by handwriting expert Mr. Malik, has no merit because if the students had been asked to give their specimen signatures for their comparison, they would have intentionally disguised or distorted the same. On the other hand, standard signatures of the students were available on their application forms and undertakings given at the time of counselling and the same were used for comparison with their disputed signatures. It may also be mentioned that even handwriting expert examined by the students has compared their disputed signatures with their aforesaid standard signatures and not with their specimen signatures.
Added to the aforesaid, another committee was constituted to hold regular enquiry. The said committee was headed by a retired District and Sessions Judge. The said committee gave full opportunity to the appellants to defend themselves. After recording evidence of both the parties and after hearing both the parties, the committee submitted enquiry report against the appellants. Consequently final punishment orders were passed against the appellants. There is no reason or ground to interfere with the action taken by the University after going through the entire process in a lawful manner.
It has been consistently laid down by this Court as well as by Hon'ble Supreme Court that ordinarily Courts should not interfere with the affairs of educational institutions unless action of an educational institution is found to be completely arbitrary, illegal, in violation of principles of natural justice, against its own statutes or against law or suffering from such like other grave error or vice. In the instant case, however, impugned action of the University does not suffer from any such vice or infirmity so as to vitiate the same and so as to call for interference by Court.
There is also concurrent finding by both the Courts below to non-suit the plaintiffs. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal or based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. On the contrary, the view taken by the Courts below is perfectly reasonable, possible and sound view. Consequently the same is not liable to be set aside even if it be assumed for the sake of argument only that a contrary view was also possible.
Since photographs of the candidates were there on the admit cards, if the invigilators had been really vigilant and careful, there would not have been such instances of impersonation. However, the fact remains that there have been cases of impersonation in the entrance test in question because six cases of impersonation were even detected at the spot by the flying squad as submitted by counsel for appellants himself. Consequently it cannot be said that there could be no impersonation in view of photographs on admit cards or that there was no other case of impersonation. There is also distinct possibility of collusion or connivance of invigilators or other staff of the examination centre resulting in cases of impersonation. On the contrary, the flying squad could not be expected to examine each candidate taking the entrance test while the test was going on. Flying squads examine the cases at random or on noticing something suspicious. Consequently merely because cases of the appellants herein were not detected during the test itself, they cannot be exonerated. Obviously when their cases were not detected during the test itself, possibly there could be no direct evidence against them regarding impersonation. However, the University after holding regular enquiry has found the appellants guilty of being impersonated in the test. Consequently the impugned action of the University against the appellants is not vitiated and is not liable to be set aside.
It is also worth noticing that Mr. Hari Ram, who headed the regular enquiry committee, has appeared in the witness box. He was cross-examined at length but his testimony could not be impeached. On the other hand, he has stated that their conclusion in the enquiry report was not based on the report of handwriting expert alone but was based on circumstantial evidence corroborated by the report of handwriting expert.
In the aforesaid circumstances, benefit of doubt also cannot be given to the appellants. Stream of higher education has to be kept unpolluted and unadulterated. Instances of seeking admission to different courses by dubious means including impersonation in entrance test are increasing day by day. Such instances have to be curbed with strong hand so as to discourage the potential fence-sitters from indulging in dubious means. On the other hand, if such instances are ignored on the ground of sympathy or compassion, it would encourage other fence-sitters also to indulge in dubious means to secure admission to various courses. Rather it would even tempt sincere students to indulge in dubious means to secure admission. Moreover, on account of admissions of undeserving students by dubious means, deserving students get excluded from securing admission and thereby get discouraged and disappointed and lose faith in the system.
It may be added that the University has not launched criminal proceedings against the appellants for alleged impersonation. Punishment of debarring the appellants from securing admission in University in any course for next two academic sessions has already lapsed by expiry of the period of two years.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in these appeals. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in these second appeals. All these appeals are accordingly dismissed.