ORDER
S.D. Agarwala, C.J.
1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of learned single Judge dated December 10,
1990; allowing the Writ Petition No, 590 of 1990, filed by Devinder Paul Sharma. By means of this writ petition, Devinder Paul Sharma has challenged the order of the Guru Nanak Dev University (hereinafter referred to as “the University”) by virtue of which the petitioner was disqualified for one year, having been found guilty of use of unfair means in B.Ed, examination held by the University at D.A.N. College of Education, Nawanshahr, Jalandhar. The order by virtue of which the result of the examination for the year 1989 was cancelled and the petitioner was debarred from “appearing in any exam ination of the University, is dated January 4, 1990. This order was passed under Ordinance 10(J), read with Ordinance 11, relating to unfair means, framed by the University.
2. In reply to the writ petition the University has filed an Annexure R-l/1, the actual order dated December 13,1989, passed by Unfair Means Committee, which found Devinder Paul Sharma guilty of misconduct and decided to disqualify him from appearing in any examination of the University for a period of one year.
3. We have gone through the judgment of learned single Judge. Civil Writ Petition No. 590 of 1990 has been decided by the learned single Judge in relation to which the present appeal arises, as also Civil Writ Petition No. 14085 of 1989, as common of question of law arises. It appears that due to some mistake the learned single Judge took both these petitions together (i.e. Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 590 of 1990 and 14085 of 1989). The facts of both these petitions are different and no common question of law arises for determination in these cases.
4. In Writ Petition No. 590 of 1990, action has been taken against Devinder Paul Sharma under Ordinance 10(J) while in Civil Writ Petition No. 14085 of 1989 action has been taken under Ordinance 10(J) read with Ordinances 11 and 13 of the Ordinances framed by the University regarding unfair means.
5. In the circumstances, we have heard learned Counsel for the University and
learned Counsel for the respondent again on
of the petition.
6. In the instant case, Devinder Paul Sharma was appearing under Roll No. 1 175 in B.Ed. examination in D.A.N. College of Education, Nawan Shahr, Jalandhar. On April 22, 1989, the examination took place in the subject of teaching of english paper. At 10.50a.m. the Flying Squad visited the said Centre and seven printed papers, which were relevant to the examination, were recovered from Devinder Paul Sharma examinee. Since the examinee was caught red handed by the Flying Squad, the matter was referred to the University and the record which was recovered from him was also sent to the University for taking necessary action.
7. It is not disputed that notice to show
cause was given to the examinee and he
appeared before the Unfair Means Commit
tee.
8. The Unfair Means Committee after hearing Devinder Paul Sharma and after examining the evidence on record found that he had actually used unfair means in the examination. He was found in possession of seven sheets of printed paper, which were recovered by the Flying Squad from his possession and consequently found him guilty of misconduct under Ordinance 10(J) of the Ordinances framed by the University. Ordinance 10(J) of the Ordinances relating to Unfair Means reads as follows : —
“Receiving help or attempting to receive help for answering the question paper from any source in any manner, inside or outside the examination hall.”
Ordinance 10(J) clearly provides that if a candidate is found in possession in the examination-hall papers, books, notes or Writing on any part of the clothes of the candidate or any other material written thereon which may be intended to be of possible help in the examination of the candidate, he would be held guilty of the use of unfair means. In the instant case, Flying Squad had recovered from possession of Devinder Paul Sharma seven printed papers relevant to the examination at the time When
he was taking the examination. It, is there-fore clear that the provisions of Ordin-ance 10(J) fully come into, effect. There, was sufficient material on the record to establish that- Devinder Paul Sharma was guilty of misconduct under Ordinance 10(J).
9. In the circumstances, it cannot be said,
that the decision of the Unfair Means Com-
mittee debarring Devinder Paul Sharma from
appearing in any examination of the Univer-
sity for one year, was, not in any manner
erroneous or illegal.
10. Learned Counsel for the University has also placed before us the original answer-book of Devinder Paul Sharma as well as the sheets of paper recovered from his possession. We find not only Devinder Paul Sharma was in possession of the printed papers but in fact he has used those papers to give anwers in the answer-book. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that it is a clear case where Devinder Paul Sharma is guilty of misconduct and is liable to be punished under the Ordinances of the University.
11. In the result, the Letters Patent
Appeal is allowed and the Civil Writ Petition
No. 590 of 1990 is dismissed with no order as
to costs.
12. Appeal allowed.