IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.727 of 2009
Date of Decision: April 17, 2009
Ashok Kumar
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak & Others
.....RESPONDENT(S)
. . .
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: - Mr. P.R. Yadav, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
Mr. Sidharth Batra, Advocate, for
the respondents.
. . .
AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)
This civil writ petition filed under
Article 226/277 of the Constitution of India
challenges Order dated 19.12.2008 (Annexure P-6)
under which examination of the petitioner has been
cancelled on the proceedings initiated by the
Standing Committee on unfair means and misconduct
holding the petitioner guilty using unfair means in
the examination in which the petitioner appeared in
April 2008.
Learned counsel for the petitioner
contends that no such incident had occurred and
therefore, the action of the respondents is not
CWP No.727 of 2009 [2]
warranted by law or facts.
Learned counsel for the respondents,
on the strength of the original record produced in
Court, contends that the petitioner specifically
admitted his misbehaviour with the Supervisor.
Already a lenient view has been taken and only the
examination taken by the petitioner has been
cancelled.
I have heard the learned counsel and
considered the issue.
It transpires that during examination
on 30.5.2008, a report was furnished by the Centre
Superintendent which is in the following words:-
“The student, Ashok Kumar, was found with mobile
phone in the examination hall. When he was checked
by Supervisor he argued and misbehaved. Asst. Supdt.
reported this matter to the Centre Supdt. Centre Supdt.
and Dy. Supdt. advised him not to do so again, but he
continued to argue and started misbehaving.
It should be also taken into consideration that the
student had misbehaved on the prior exam on 28th of
May, 2008 and had tried to flee the examination hall
without handing over answer book after the expiry of
the time for exam.”
The document is signed by the
Assistant Superintendent, on duty Supervisor and the
Superintendent.
It seems that a notice was served on
the petitioner whereupon the petitioner, on
3.10.2008 gave in writing (in vernacular) to the
effect that he had taken the examination of B.Ed. He
was not aware that case for misbehaviour had been
made against him. He was not at fault and he had not
CWP No.727 of 2009 [3]
committed any act of misbehaviour. He be given an
opportunity to appeal.
Subsequently, it seems that the
petitioner was heard. On 18.10.2008, the petitioner
gave a letter to the authorities in writing which is
to the effect that he had taken the examination in
May/June 2008 in sub-centre of B.Ed examination. He
indulged in misbehaviour with the supervisory staff.
He had committed a mistake and furnishes
unconditional apology.
Essentially, the petitioner accepted
his misconduct as alleged against him. Considering
the totality of facts and circumstances, the penalty
as noticed above has been imposed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner
admits that he had given in writing accepting the
misbehaviour with the authorities. Learned counsel
for the petitioner has not pointed out any
procedural lapse that has caused prejudice to the
rights of the petitioner. The facts and
circumstances do not call for interference in
extraordinary writ jurisdiction. In view of the
acceptance of the misbehaviour by the petitioner,
there is no reason to judicially review the order
passed by the authorities.
The petition is dismissed.
(AJAI LAMBA)
April 17, 2009 JUDGE
avin