Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/3231/2010 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3231 of 2010
======================================
PARMAR
NIKITCHHABEN JEEVANBHAI - Petitioner
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondents
======================================
Appearance
:
MR
DP JOSHI for Petitioner.
MR RASHESH RINDANI, AGP for Respondent
No.1
None for Respondent Nos.2 -
4.
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
Date
: 12/03/2010
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner
has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for the direction to the respondent authorities to
allow the petitioner to appear in the remedial examination of First
Year Pharmacy (popularly known as ATKT) which is to be held in the
month of March April, 2010.
Heard Mr. D.
P. Joshi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr.
Rashesh Rindani, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for
the respondent No.1 on an advance copy being served to the
Government Pleader’s office.
It is the case
of the petitioner that the petitioner was studying in the Second
Year Pharmacy in Tolani Institute of Pharmacy, Adiput Kutch.
The petitioner had already completed first year and had appeared in
the examination of ATKT while studying in the second year. The
petitioner in the first year cleared three subjects which are
Bio-Chemistry, Human Anatomy and Health Education and was failed in
three subjects which are Pharmaceutics, Pharmaceutical Chemistry and
Pharmacognocy.
It is also the
case of the petitioner that in the month of September 2009, the
petitioner had appeared in three subjects in which the petitioner
was failed and on 19.09.2009, in the last paper, the checking squad
had recovered some literature from the petitioner and the petitioner
was asked to appear before Unfair Means Committee. The said
Committee found the petitioner guilty and punished the petitioner as
per Rule 3G and accordingly, the petitioner’s result was cancelled
and the petitioner was debarred to appear in subsequent examination.
The said
decision of the Committee was challenged by the petitioner by filing
Special Civil Application No.258 of 2010. The said petition was
withdrawn by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner made an
application on 17.02.2010 with specific prayer that exactly, what
punishment was imposed on the petitioner and the petitioner was not
allowed to appear in which examination. The said application was
replied to on 23.02.2010 and it was stated that the decision taken
earlier was just and proper and no reconsideration is necessary.
Mr. Joshi has
submitted that this is double jeopardy. The petitioner’s result was
cancelled and again the petitioner was not permitted to appear in
the examination. He has, therefore, submitted that the indulgence
of this Court is necessary and necessary directions be issued to the
respondents so that the petitioner can appear in the examination at
least for remedial examination which is scheduled to be held in
March, 2010.
Mr. Rashesh
Rindani, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.1, on the
other hand, has submitted that the punishment was imposed under Rule
3-G which is very clear. It says that when the petitioner is found
to be guilty, the result is required to be declared fail in all the
subjects for which he / she has appeared in the respective Semester
University examination and he / she is not allowed to appear in the
next same Semester regular examination. For instance, a student is
reported under UFM during Sem-II examination in the year June-09,
then he/she is not eligible to appear in next year i.e. June-10
Sem-II regular examination. In short, he/she can appear in June-11
Sem.-II regular examinations to be conducted by University. He has,
therefore, submitted that considering Rule 3-G, the petitioner’s
prayer for allowing her to appear in March, 2010 examination is
contrary to the said Rule and the petitioner can appear in the
examination only in 2011.
Having
considered this fact and submissions of the parties, the Court is of
the view that the decision taken by the respondent authorities does
not call for any interference by this Court. It is crystal clear
that the petitioner can appear now only in 2011 examination and the
petitioner’s challenge to the decision of the Committee was already
rejected by this Court.
Subject
to the above clarification, this petition is accordingly disposed
of.
Sd/-
[K. A. PUJ, J.]
Savariya
Top