ORDER
Harjit Singh Bedi, J.
1. The petitioner, who was employed as a Clerk-cum-typist in the Guru Nanak Khasla College, Daroli Kala(sic) Jalandhar, sought permission from her employer vide Annexure P-1 dated 21.11.1989 for appearing in the B.A. Part II Examination that was to be held in April, 1990. This permission was granted by the Principal vide an endorsement made on the said application on the same day. The petitioner also received her roll number from the University, respondent No. 1, and on the issuance of the date-sheet applied for leave for the relevant dates vide Annexure P-2 dated 14.4.1990. This permission was also granted by the Principal of the College by making an endorsement on the said application. The petitioner accordingly appeared in the examination as a private candidate, but as her result was not declared, she made enquiries from the University on which it transpired that an anonymous complaint had been received against her and the University intended to take action thereon. The University also sought the comments of the Principal, the respondent College, and he recommended that as an anonymous complaint had been made against the petitioner, it was liable to be ignored and that in any case the point raised in the complaint pertained to the functioning of the University and not of the college. The University nevertheless initiated proceedings against the petitioner for the use of unfair means vide notice Annexure P-4 dated 7.1.1991 and it was stated therein that action was proposed to be taken under Ordinance 10(j) read with Ordinance 13 of the Guru Nanak Dev University Calendar, 1986 Vol. II (hereinafter called the Calendar). The University also enclosed with Annexure P-4 an extract from the report of the subject expert in support of the proposed action. The University thereafter issued a revised notice Annexure P-6 dated 9.1.1991 and it was intimated that the action was also being proposed on the allegation that the action was also being proposed on the allegation that the petitioner had received help from an inside or outside source and that she had obtained admission to the examination on the basis of a false representation. The petitioner was also called upon to appear before the Unfair-means Committee at 9 a.m. on 16th January, 1991. The petitioner appeared before the Committee on the date fixed and projected her case but the University vide Notification Annexure P-7 dated ,4.2.1991 disqualified her from appearing in any examination of the University for a period of three years under Ordinance 10(u) read with Ordinance 11 of the Calendar. The petitioner thereafter filed a representation before the Vice Chancellor and this too was rejected vide Annexure P-8 dated 15.3.1991. Annexures P-7 and P-8 have been impugned in the present writ petition.
2. On notice of motion, a reply has been filed by the respondent-University and it has been pointed out that the Unfair-means Committee had, in its proceeding taken on 16.1.1991, (appended as Annexure R-1/1 with the reply), proposed action against the petitioner as she had concealed the fact that she was an in-service candidate and had under a stratagem, appeared as a private candidate instead, and that the order had been made after affording her a full hearing. It has nevertheless been admitted that of the two charges that had been framed against her, only one stood proved, that being the one under Ordinance 10(u) read with Ordinance 11 of the University Calendar whereas she had been exonerated of the second charge under Ordinance 10(j) read with Ordinance 13 thereof. The respondent has also appended a photograph of the examination form filled by the petitioner as Annexure R-1/2.
3. Mr. Akshay Bhan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has, at the very outset, pointed out that the more serious of the two charges against the petitioner had not been proved and that the petitioner had been found guilty of having concealed certain information which had enabled her to appear as a private candidate although she was an in-service candidate. He has also pointed out that the writ petition had been admitted way back on 26th April, 1991 on which date the operation of the impugned orders Annexures P-7 and P-8 had been stayed and it had been directed that the case be heard within six months thereafter. He has accordingly urged that as a very long time has since elapsed it would not be fair to non-suit the petitioner on the basis of a technicality, the more so she was not to blame for the alleged misdemeanour.
4. Mr. Patwalia, the learned counsel appearing for the University, has however pointed out that a perusal of the application form Annexure R-1/2 clearly proved the mala fides of the petitioner as in the certificate for private candidates and in service candidates (as given on page two of the form), it had not been disclosed by her that she was in the service of the college and it was due to this omission that she had been permitted to appear as a private candidate.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to succeed. It is apparent that the two charges had initially been framed against the petitioner, one under Ordinance 10(J) read with Ordinance 13 and the other under Ordinance 10(u) read with Ordinance 11 of the University Calendar. Both the ordinances are reproduced below:
10(j). Receiving help or attempting to receive help for answering the question paper from any source in any manner, inside or outside the examination hall.
13. If the answer book of a candidate shows or it is otherwise established that he had received or attempted to receive help from any source and in any manner, or has given help or attempted to give help to another candidate in any manner, he shall be disqualified from appearing in any examination for a period of not less than two years.
10(u). Obtaining admission to an examination on a false representation made in the admission form or any other document or suppressing material information relating to the candidate’s eligibility and/or obtaining admission to a course in an affiliated College to eventually appear in a University examination, and such admission has been found to have been obtained on the basis of false representation;”
6. From the report of the Unfair-means Committee, Annexure R-1/1, as also r from the reply filed in Court, it is apparent that the petitioner has been exonerated of the charge under Ordinance 10(j) and 13. To my mind, had this charge been proved, the exercise of discretion in the petitioners favour would have been wholly misplaced. The charge which stands proved against the petitioner is under Ordinance 10(u) read with Ordinance 11 which pertained to the false/incorrect information that she is said to have furnished to the University while filling up the form Annexure R-1/2. These findings are also not well founded for the reason that the two certificates, one for private candidate and the other for candidates in-service (on which Mr. Patwalia has placed reliance) were to be filled in not by the candidate herself, but by the Principal of the College where she stood employed. In this situation any incorrect information furnished or information withheld could not inculpate the petitioner. It is no ones case that the petitioner was, in any way, in league with the Principal of the College so as to enable her to appear as a private candidate and the mere assertion of the learned counsel for the University to this effect at the time of arguments is to no avail. It is also significant that in the certificate for private candidates which has been countersigned by the Principal, Column (iv) which provided that “he/she is not in service any where” had not been cancelled. It is, therefore, apparent that this omission which implicitly revealed that she was in-service made it the responsibility of the respondent-University to scrutinise and to reject the application form at the time of its submission. Moreover, in view of the fact that the interim order had been made by this Court way back in 1991 and the case had also been ordered to be listed within six months from the date of its admission i.e. 26th April, 1991, it would not be fair in the given facts to relegate the petitioner to the stage of 1991 after so many years.
7. This petition is accordingly allowed; the impugned orders Annexures P-7 and P-8 are quashed. There will be no order as to costs.
8. Dasti order.