{"id":188521,"date":"1976-04-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1976-04-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-university-chandigarh-vs-vijay-singh-lamba-etc-etc-on-15-april-1976"},"modified":"2017-09-04T01:04:57","modified_gmt":"2017-09-03T19:34:57","slug":"punjab-university-chandigarh-vs-vijay-singh-lamba-etc-etc-on-15-april-1976","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-university-chandigarh-vs-vijay-singh-lamba-etc-etc-on-15-april-1976","title":{"rendered":"Punjab University, Chandigarh vs Vijay Singh Lamba Etc. Etc on 15 April, 1976"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Punjab University, Chandigarh vs Vijay Singh Lamba Etc. Etc on 15 April, 1976<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 1441, \t\t 1976 SCR 67<\/div>\n
Author: Y Chandrachud<\/div>\n
Bench: Chandrachud, Y.V.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nPUNJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nVIJAY SINGH LAMBA ETC. ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT15\/04\/1976\n\nBENCH:\nCHANDRACHUD, Y.V.\nBENCH:\nCHANDRACHUD, Y.V.\nKRISHNAIYER, V.R.\nUNTWALIA, N.L.\n\nCITATION:\n 1976 AIR 1441\t\t  1976 SCR   67\n 1976 SCC  (3) 344\n\n\nACT:\n     Quorum-Fixing a  quorum of\t 2 members in a committee of\n3, does\t not warrant  all the  three  must  be\tpresent\t for\nvalidity of  any action\t of the committee -Punjab University\nCalendar,   1973,   Vol.   II-Regulations   31\t and   32.1-\nInterpretation of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     Regulations  31  and  32.1\t of  the  Punjab  University\nCalendar, 1973, Volume II are as under:\n\t  \"31.\tThe   Syndicate\t shall\tappoint\t annually  a\n     standing committee\t to deal  with cases  of the alleged\n     misconduct and  use of  unfair means in connection with\n     examinations;\n\t  32.1.\t When\tthe  committee\t is  unanimous,\t its\n     decision shall  be final  except as provided in S.32.2.\n     If the  Committee is not unanimous, the matter shall be\n     referred to the Vice-Chancellor who shall either decide\n     the matter\t himself or  refer it  to the  Syndicate for\n     decision\".\n     By virtue\tof the\tpowers vested  in the syndicate, the\nPunjab\tUniversity  appointed  a  standing  committee  under\nRegulation 31  consisting of  a retired high court judge, an\nAdvocate who  was formerly  a minister\tof State of Punjab &\nthe Registrar  of the  University. It  also resolved, by its\nResolution dated  17th August  1971, that  two members shall\nform the  quorum for  the meetings of the standing committee\nappointed under Regulation 31. For adopting unfair practices\nin the\texamination, respondents  were disqualified  by\t the\nCommittee, in all the sittings of which, only two out of the\nthree members  were present.  The respondents  contended  by\ntheir writ  petitions that  the decisions  of  the  Standing\nCommittee were\twithout jurisdiction  in as  much as all the\nthree members  of the  Standing Committee had not taken part\nthe meetings  in which the decisions to disqualify them were\ntaken. By a majority of 2 to 1, the High Court set aside the\ndecisions taking the view that despite the circumstance that\ntwo members of the committee formed the quorum, the impugned\ndecisions were\tvitiated by the fact that only 2 and not all\nthe  3\t members  of   the  committee  participated  in\t the\nproceedings.\n     Allowing the appeals by certificate, the Court,\n^\n     HELD: (1) The Constitution of the Standing Committee is\nindisputably  within  the  powers  of  the  Syndicate  under\nRegulation 31.\tThe Syndicate which had the power to appoint\nthe Standing  Committee had  the incidental power to fix the\nquorum for  the meetings of the Standing Committee. 'Quorum'\ndenotes the minimum number of members of any body of persons\nwhose presence\tis necessary in order to enable that body to\ntransact its  business validly\tso  that  its  acts  may  be\nlawful.\t It   is  wholly   inappropriate  to   draw  on\t the\nConstitution of\t judicial tribunals  as a  parallel. In\t the\ninstant case,  the syndicate  by nominating  3 persons to be\nmembers of  the Standing  Committee, but by resolving that 2\nof them would validly constitute the standing committee, did\nno more\t than provide that though the Standing Committee may\nbe composed  of 3  persons, any\t 2 of them could validly and\neffectively transact  the business  of and  on behalf of the\nCommittee. [70 E-F, 71-A-C]\n     (ii) By  the quorum, a minimum number of members of the\ncommittee must\tbe present in order that its proceedings may\nbe lawful, but that does not mean that more than the minimum\nare  denied   an   opportunity\t to   participate   in\t the\ndeliberations and the decision of the committee. There is no\n68\nwarrant\t for  the  hypothesis  that  had  the  third  member\nattended the  meetings he  would  have\tdissented  from\t the\ndecision of  the 2  other members  so as  to  necessitate  a\nreference to  the Vice Chancellor under Regulation 32.1. [71\nF-G 72-AB]\n     (iii) When\t Regulation 32.1  speaks  of  the  committee\nbeing unanimous,  it refers  to the unanimity of the members\nwho for the time being are sitting on the committee and who,\nby forming the quorum can validly and lawfully discharge the\nfunctions of  the Committee.  The fixation of quorum neither\nmakes Regulation  32.1 a  dead letter nor does it affect its\napplication or\tutility.  The  fixation\t of  quorum  by\t the\nSyndicate violates neither the letter nor the spirit of that\nRegulation. [72 C-D, E, F]\n     (iv) Regulation 32.1 is aimed at conferring finality on\ndecisions of  the committee  if they  are unanimous  and  at\nleaving the  validity and  priority of a dissenting decision\nto the\tjudgment of  the Vice-Chancellor  who can  deal with\nthe matter  himself or\trefer it  to  the  decision  of\t the\nSyndicate. Regulation 32.1 does not even remotely attempt to\nfix the\t quorum. That  is not  its purpose,  and  it  sounds\nstrange that  the Regulation, by a circuitous method, should\nfix the\t quorum at  the full  complement of members. Quorums\nare seldom  so fixed  and were\tit intended  that the entire\ncommittee  must\t decide\t every\tcase,  Regulation  31  could\nappropriately have said so. [72 G-H, 73 A]\n     It is  quite true\tthat judicial consistency is not the\nhighest state  of legal\t bliss. Law  must  grow,  it  cannot\nafford to  a static and therefore, judges ought to employ an\nintelligent technique  in the  use of  precedents.  But\t the\nlanguage  of   the  Regulations\t called\t for  no  review  of\nestablished precedents.\t Nor indeed  is there  any  fear  of\nunfairness if  only 2  members decided the cases of students\naccused of adopting unfair practices in the examinations. In\nsuch cases,  it is  so much  better that the law is certain.\n[73 C-D, E]\n     Bharat Indu  v. The Punjab University & Anr. ILR [1967]\n2 Punjab  & Haryana  198; Miss\tManjinder Kaur v. The Punjab\nUniversity (Civil  Writ No. 3516\/72 dt. 30-3-1973 decided by\nthe Punjab High Court (approved).\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 1121-
\n1125 of 1975.\n<\/p>\n
     From the  Judgment and  Order dated the 31st March 1975
\nof the\tPunjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition
\nNos. 5948, 6115, 6736, 6779 and 6780 of 1974.\n<\/p>\n
     Hardev Singh and R. S. Sodhi for the Appellant.
\n     S. K.  Bagga and (Mrs.) S. Bagga for Sole Respondent in
\nCA 1121 R-1 in CAs. 1122-1125\/75.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     CHANDRACHUD, J.-These  appeals arise  out of a decision
\nrendered by a Full Bench of the Punjab High Court in various
\nwrit  petitions\t  filed\t by   the  students  of\t the  Punjab
\nUniversity,  who   were\t disqualified  for  adopting  unfair
\npractices in  the examinations. Most of them had copied from
\na common  source. By a majority of 2 to 1, the High Court by
\nits Judgment dated March 31, 1975 set aside the decisions of
\na Committee  appointed to  inquire into\t the charges against
\nthe erring  students. The  judgment of\tthe  majority  rests
\nsolely on the
\n69<\/span>
\nview that  despite the\tcircumstance that two members of the
\nCommittee formed  the quorum  the  impunged  decisions\twere
\nvitiated by  the fact  that only 2 and not all the 3 members
\nof the\tCommittee participated in the proceedings. Aggrieved
\nby the\tmajority judgment  of the  High\t Court,\t the  Punjab
\nUniversity,  Chandigarh,   has\tfiled  these  appeals  by  a
\ncertificate granted by the High Court on the ground that the
\nappeals involve\t a substantial\tquestion of  law of  general
\nimportance which requires to be determined by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
     The respondents  to these\tappeals were detected in the
\nuse of\tunfair means  by the  supervisory staff at different
\nexaminations held  by  the  Punjab  University.\t The  Deputy
\nRegistrar  of\tthe  University\t  issued  notices   to\t the
\nrespondents calling  upon them\tto submit their replies to a
\nquestionnaire. Respondents  denied having  used unfair means
\nin the\texaminations but their explanation having been found
\nto be  unsatisfactory, the charges were referred for inquiry
\nand decision  to the  Standing Committee which was appointed
\nto deal\t with cases of misconduct and use of unfair means at
\nthe University examinations.\n<\/p>\n
     The Standing  Committee consisted of Shri G. L. Chopra,
\na retired  Judge of  the High  Court, Shri  Ajmer Singh,  an
\nadvocate  who\twas  formerly\ta  Minister  of\t the  Punjab
\nGovernment, and\t Shri Jagjit  Singh, the  Registrar  of\t the
\nUniversity. The\t Standing Committee  was  appointed  by\t the
\nSyndicate of  the University  under  Regulation\t 31  of\t the
\nPunjab University  Calender, 1973,  Volume II.\tIn a meeting
\ndated August 17, 1971 the Syndicate passed a Resolution that
\ntwo members  shall form\t the quorum  for the meetings of the
\nStanding  Committee   appointed\t under\t Regulation  31.  In
\neveryone of  the meetings, only two out of the three members
\nof the Standing Committee were present.\n<\/p>\n
     Respondents  appeared  before  the\t Standing  Committee
\nwhich, on  a consideration  of their  statements came to the
\nunanimous conclusion that the respondents had adopted unfair
\nmeans in  the examinations.  By the  impugned decisions they
\nwere disqualified  for varying terms. It is not alleged that
\nthe Standing  Committee had  committed breach  of any of the
\nprocedural provisions or of the rules of natural justice. We
\nmay also  mention in  passing that  none of  the respondents
\ntook any  objection during  the\t inquiry  that\tit  was\t not
\ncompetent to  only two\tmembers of the Standing Committee to
\ninquire into  the charges.  Before the\tHigh Court also, the
\nsole ground on which the decisions of the Standing Committee
\nwere  challenged   was\tthat   the  decisions  were  without
\njurisdiction inasmuch  as  all\tthe  three  members  of\t the
\nStanding Committee  had not  taken part\t in the\t meetings in
\nwhich the decision to disqualify the respondents was taken.\n<\/p>\n
     The Punjab University, Chandigarh, was set up under the
\nEast Punjab  Ordinance 1947, which was later replaced by the
\nPunjab University  Act, 1947.  By section  8 of\t the Act the
\nsupreme authority  of the  University vests  in\t the  Senate
\nconsisting  of\tthe  Chancellor,  the  Vice-Chancellor,\t ex-
\nofficio Fellows\t and Ordinary Fellows. Section 1 1(2) of the
\nAct provides  inter alia  that the Senate shall exercise its
\npowers\tin   accordance\t with\tthe  statutes,\t rules\t and
\nregulations for the
\n70<\/span>
\ntime being in force. Section 20 of the Act provides that the
\nExecutive Government  of the  University shall\tvest in\t the
\nSyndicate consisting of the Vice-Chancellor as Chairman, the
\nDirectors  of\tPublic\tInstruction   Punjab,  Haryana\t and
\nChandigarh, the Director of Education, Himachal Pradesh, and
\nnot less  than 12  or more  than 15  ex-officio or  ordinary
\nFellows elected\t by various  Faculties. Section 31(1) of the
\nAct provides  for the framing of Regulations and states that
\nthe Senate,  with the  sanction of  the Government, may from
\ntime to\t time make  regulations consistent  with the Act for
\nproviding  for\tall  matters  relating\tto  the\t University.
\nSection\t 31   (2)   enumerates\t matters   regarding   which
\nregulations can\t be made  and they  include the\t conduct  of
\nstudents, the  procedure to  be followed  at meetings of the
\nSenate, Syndicate and Faculties and the quorum of members to
\nbe required  for the  transaction of  business. Acting under
\nthe power  conferred by section 31, the Senate of the Punjab
\nUniversity  framed  regulations\t in  consultation  with\t the
\nGovernment, which include regulations relating to the use of
\nunfair\tmeans\tin  examinations.   These  regulations\t are
\ncontained in  Chapter II  of the Punjab University Calendar,
\n1973, Volume II.\n<\/p>\n
     The decision of these appeals turns on the construction
\nand meaning  of regulations  31 and 32.1 of Chapter II which
\nread thus:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “31.\tThe   Syndicate\t shall\tappoint\t annually  a
\n     Standing Committee\t to deal  with cases  of the alleged
\n     misconduct and  use of  unfair means in connection with
\n     examination;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  32.1.\t When\tthe  Committee\t is  unanimous,\t its
\n     decision shall  be final except as provided in 32.2. If
\n     the Committee  is not  unanimous the  matter  shall  be
\n     referred to the Vice-Chancellor who shall either decide
\n     the matter\t himself or  refer it  to the  Syndicate for
\n     decision”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The  constitution\t of  the   Standing   Committee\t  is
\nindisputably  within  the  powers  of  the  Syndicate  under
\nRegulation 31.\tNo exception  can therefore  be taken to the
\nappointment of\tthe Standing  Committee by the Syndicate and
\nindeed no  objection was  at any stage taken in that behalf.
\nEqually clear  seems to\t us the\t position that the Syndicate
\nwhich had  the power  to appoint  the Standing Committee had
\nthe incidental\tpower to  fix the quorum for the meetings of
\nthe Standing  Committee. ‘Quorum’ denotes the minimum number
\nof  members  of\t any  body  of\tpersons\t whose\tpresence  is
\nnecessary in  order to\tenable that  body  to  transact\t its
\nbusiness validly  so that  its acts  may be  lawful.  It  is
\ngenerally left\tto committees  themselves to  fix the quorum
\nfor their  meetings and\t perhaps, if  the Syndicate  had not
\nfixed the  quorum  it  might  have  been  competent  to\t the
\nStanding Committee itself to devise its day-to-day procedure
\nincluding the  fixation of quorum But that is going one step
\nahead, for  here the  quorum was  fixed not  by the Standing
\nCommittee but  by the  Syndicate itself\t which appointed the
\nStanding Committee  and which  indubitably had\tthe right to
\nappoint the  Committee-under Regulation 31. We are unable to
\nsee any\t valid reason  for which  the fixation of quorum for
\nthe
\n71<\/span>
\nmeetings of  a Committee  appointed by\tthe Syndicate can be
\nsaid to\t be beyond the powers of the Syndicate. It is wholly
\ninappropriate in this connection to draw on the constitution
\nof judicial  tribunals as a parallel because, if by law such
\na  tribunal   must  consist   of  3   members  there  is  no
\njurisdiction in the tribunal to fix a smaller quorum for its
\nsittings. A  court is  not a  committee and  if by  law\t any
\nmatter is  required to\tbe heard,  say by  a bench  of three
\nJudges, there  is no  power in those three Judges to resolve
\nthat only two of them will form a quorum. In fact, quorum is
\nfixed for meetings of committees and not for the sittings of
\ncourts. In  the instant\t case the Syndicate had the right to
\nfix the\t number of persons who would constitute the Standing
\nCommittee and by fixing the quorum at 2, it did no more than
\nprovide that  though the  Standing Committee may be composed
\nof 3  persons, any  2 of  them could validly and effectively
\ntransact the  business of  and on  behalf of  the committee.
\nPutting the  matter  a\tlittle\tdifferently,  the  Syndicate
\nnominated 3  persons to be members of the Standing Committee
\nbut resolved that any 2 of them would validly constitute the
\nStanding Committee  for the  time being\t to dispose  of\t any
\nbusiness which comes before it.\n<\/p>\n
     Great reliance  was placed\t by the\t respondents both in
\nthe High  Court and  before us\ton Regulation  32.1 which we
\nhave set  out above,  in support  of the contention that the
\ndecision of  the Standing Committee was without jurisdiction
\nsince all  the members of the Committee had not participated
\nin  the\t various  decisions.  By  Regulation  32.1,  if\t the
\nStanding  Committee   is  unanimous  in\t its  decision,\t the
\ndecision is  final except as provided in Regulation 32.2; if
\nthe committee  is  not\tunanimous,  the\t matter\t has  to  be
\nreferred to  the Vice-Chancellor  who can  either decide the
\nmatter\thimself\t or  refer  it\tto  the\t Syndicate  for\t its
\ndecision. It  is urged on behalf of the respondents that the
\npossible dissent  of the  3rd member, were he present, would
\nhave necessitated  a reference\tto the\tVice-Chancellor\t who
\nmight not  agree with the majority opinion, which shows that
\nno sanctity  can attach\t to a decision rendered by less than
\nthe whole  body of 3 members of the Standing Committee. This
\nargument is  purely hypothetical  and besides,\tit overlooks
\nthat the  fixation of quorum for the meetings of a committee
\ndoes not  preclude all\tthe members  of the  committee\tfrom
\nattending the  meetings. By  the quorum, a minimum number of
\nthe committee  must be present in order that its proceedings
\nmay be\tlawful but  that does  not mean\t that more  than the
\nminimum are  denied an\topportunity to\tparticipate  in\t the
\ndeliberations and the decisions of the committee. Whenever a
\ncommittee is  scheduled to  meet, due notice of the meetings
\nhas to go to all the members of the committee and it is left
\nto each\t individual  member  whether  or  not  to  attend  a
\nparticular meeting. Every member has thus the choice and the
\nopportunity to attend every meeting of the committee. If any
\nmember considers  the matter  which is\tto be  discussed  or
\ndetermined in  a particular  meeting as\t of such  importance
\nthat he\t must make  his voice heard and cast his vote, it is
\nopen to\t him and indeed he is entitled to attend the meeting
\nand make  his presence felt. Though a faint attempt was made
\nin these  appeals for  the first  time to  suggest that\t the
\nnotice of the meetings
\n72<\/span>
\nof the\tStanding Committee  was not  served  on\t all  the  3
\nmembers of the committee we are satisfied that such a notice
\nwas in\tfact given and someone or the other of the 3 members
\nchose to  remain absent\t at the\t meetings  of  the  Standing
\nCommittee.  There   is,\t therefore,   no  warrant   for\t the
\nhypothesis that\t had the  third member attended the meetings
\nhe would  have dissented  from the  decision of\t the 2 other
\nmembers so  as to  necessitate\ta  reference  to  the  Vice-
\nChancellor under Regulation 32.1.\n<\/p>\n
     Apart from\t this consideration,  we are unable to agree
\nthat anything  contained in  Regulation 32.1  can affect the
\npower of the Syndicate to fix the quorum for the meetings of
\nthe Standing Committee. If the quorum consists of 2 members,
\nany 2  out of the 3 members can perform the functions of the
\nStanding Committee,  though the committee may be composed of
\n3 members.  When Regulation  32.1 speaks  of  the  committee
\nbeing unanimous,  it refers  to the unanimity of the members
\nwho for the time being are sitting as the committee and who,
\nby forming the quorum can validly and lawfully discharge the
\nfunctions of  the committee  and transact  all\tbusiness  on
\nbehalf of  the committee. If only 2 members out of the 3 who
\ncompose the  Standing Committee\t have  participated  in\t the
\nbusiness of  any particular  meeting, the  question  to\t ask
\nunder Regulation  32.1 is whether there is unanimity amongst
\nthose two  members. If\tthey are unanimous their decision is
\nfinal. If  they differ, the matter has to be referred to the
\nVice-Chancellor. Thus,\tthe fixation of quorum neither makes
\nRegulation 32.1\t a  dead  letter  nor  does  it\t affect\t its
\napplication or\tutility. With  respect,\t we  are  unable  to
\nappreciate the reasoning of the majority that “The manner in
\nwhich Regulation  32.1 has  been framed leaves no doubt that
\nthe consideration  of the  question of\tstudents’ misconduct
\nand the\t use of unfair means in examination by them has been
\nplaced at  a high  pedestal” and that therefore “there is no
\nescape from  the conclusion  that the  consideration of\t the
\ncase of\t a student  against whom  there are  allegations  of
\nmisconduct or  of use unfair means in an examination, has to
\nbe by  all the\tmembers of the Standing Committee and not by
\nsome of\t them and  that any decision of the Syndicate to the
\ncontrary would\the violative  of the  letter and  spirit  of
\nRegulation 32.1.”  The fixation\t of quorum  by the Syndicate
\nviolates  neither   the\t letter\t  nor  the  spirit  of\tthat
\nRegulation.\n<\/p>\n
     The majority  Judges were therefore in error in holding
\nthat Regulation\t 32.1 “clearly\tnegatives the  fixation of a
\nquorum and  makes it  incumbent that  the decision  must  be
\ntaken by  the full Committee” for the reason that “In a way,
\nthis regulation\t fixes the  quorum at  the number of members
\noriginally appointed”. The learned Judges read far more into
\nRegulation 32.1\t than there  is in  it and we see no warrant
\nfor construing\tthat regulation\t as fixing the quorum at the
\nnumber of  members originally  appointed to  the  committee.
\nRegulation 32.1\t is aimed  at conferring finally on decision
\nof the\tcommittee if  they are\tunanimous and at leaving the
\nvalidity and  propriety of  a  dissenting  decision  to\t the
\njudgment of the Vice-Chancellor who can deal with the matter
\nhimself or  refer it  to  the  decision\t of  the  Syndicate.
\nRegulation 3 2.1 does not even remotely attempt to fix the
\n73<\/span>
\nquorum. That  is not its purpose, and it sounds strange that
\nthe Regulation,\t by a  circuitous  method,  should  fix\t the
\nquorum at the full complement of members. Quorums are seldom
\nso fixed and were it intended that the entire committee must
\ndecide every  case, Regulation\t31 could  appropriately have
\nsaid so.\n<\/p>\n
     We share  the deep\t concern voiced\t in  the  dissenting
\nopinion of  Sandhawalia J.  that there\twas no justification
\nfor ignoring the stream of precedents which had consistently
\nrecognised the\tvalidity of  decisions taken by 2 members of
\nthe  Standing  Committee.  In  Bharat  Indu  v.\t The  Punjab
\nUniversity and\tanother(1),  Regulation\t 19  which  was\t the
\nprecursor of  and was  identical with  Regulation 32.1\tcame
\nbefore the  Punjab  High  Court.  By  a\t closely  considered
\njudgment, Dua  J.  who\tspoke  for  the\t Bench\tspecifically
\nrejected the  argument accepted by the two learned Judges in
\nthe instant  case. In  Miss Manjinder  Kaur  v.\t The  Punjab
\nUniversity (Civil  Writ No.  3516 of  1972, decided on March
\n30, 1973), the same contention was repeated on behalf of the
\nstudents and  once again  it was considered and rejected. It
\nis quite  true that  judicial consistency is not the highest
\nstate of  legal bliss. Law must grow, it cannot afford to be
\nstatic and  theretore Judges  ought to employ an intelligent
\ntechnique in  the use of precedents. Precedents, as observed
\nby Lord\t Macmillan,  should  be\t “stepping  stones  and\t not
\nhalting places”.(2)  But, Justice  Cardozo’s caution  should
\nnot go unheeded that the weekly change in the composition of
\nthe court  ought not  to be  accompanied by  changes in\t its
\nrulings. The  language of  the\tRegulations  called  for  no
\nreview of  established precedents.  Nor indeed\tis there any
\nfear of\t unfairness if\tonly 2\tmembers decided the cases of
\nstudents  accused   of\tadopting  unfair  practices  in\t the
\nexaminations. In  such cases  it is  so much better that the
\nlaw is certain.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  result we\tallow the  appeals,  set  aside\t the
\ndecision of  the majority  and uphold  that of\tthe minority
\nJudge. The  writ petitions  filed by  the  respondents\twill
\nconsequently stand  dismissed but  there will be no order as
\nto costs.\n<\/p>\n
S.R.\t\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n74<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Punjab University, Chandigarh vs Vijay Singh Lamba Etc. Etc on 15 April, 1976 Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 1441, 1976 SCR 67 Author: Y Chandrachud Bench: Chandrachud, Y.V. PETITIONER: PUNJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH Vs. RESPONDENT: VIJAY SINGH LAMBA ETC. ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT15\/04\/1976 BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. KRISHNAIYER, V.R. UNTWALIA, N.L. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-188521","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nPunjab University, Chandigarh vs Vijay Singh Lamba Etc. Etc on 15 April, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-university-chandigarh-vs-vijay-singh-lamba-etc-etc-on-15-april-1976\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Punjab University, Chandigarh vs Vijay Singh Lamba Etc. Etc on 15 April, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-university-chandigarh-vs-vijay-singh-lamba-etc-etc-on-15-april-1976\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1976-04-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-03T19:34:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-university-chandigarh-vs-vijay-singh-lamba-etc-etc-on-15-april-1976#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-university-chandigarh-vs-vijay-singh-lamba-etc-etc-on-15-april-1976\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Punjab University, Chandigarh vs Vijay Singh Lamba Etc. Etc on 15 April, 1976\",\"datePublished\":\"1976-04-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-03T19:34:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-university-chandigarh-vs-vijay-singh-lamba-etc-etc-on-15-april-1976\"},\"wordCount\":2662,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-university-chandigarh-vs-vijay-singh-lamba-etc-etc-on-15-april-1976#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-university-chandigarh-vs-vijay-singh-lamba-etc-etc-on-15-april-1976\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-university-chandigarh-vs-vijay-singh-lamba-etc-etc-on-15-april-1976\",\"name\":\"Punjab University, Chandigarh vs Vijay Singh Lamba Etc. Etc on 15 April, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1976-04-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-03T19:34:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-university-chandigarh-vs-vijay-singh-lamba-etc-etc-on-15-april-1976#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-university-chandigarh-vs-vijay-singh-lamba-etc-etc-on-15-april-1976\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/punjab-university-chandigarh-vs-vijay-singh-lamba-etc-etc-on-15-april-1976#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Punjab University, Chandigarh vs Vijay Singh Lamba Etc. Etc on 15 April, 1976\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Punjab University, Chandigarh vs Vijay Singh Lamba Etc. Etc on 15 April, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-university-chandigarh-vs-vijay-singh-lamba-etc-etc-on-15-april-1976","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Punjab University, Chandigarh vs Vijay Singh Lamba Etc. Etc on 15 April, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-university-chandigarh-vs-vijay-singh-lamba-etc-etc-on-15-april-1976","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1976-04-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-03T19:34:57+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-university-chandigarh-vs-vijay-singh-lamba-etc-etc-on-15-april-1976#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-university-chandigarh-vs-vijay-singh-lamba-etc-etc-on-15-april-1976"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Punjab University, Chandigarh vs Vijay Singh Lamba Etc. Etc on 15 April, 1976","datePublished":"1976-04-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-03T19:34:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-university-chandigarh-vs-vijay-singh-lamba-etc-etc-on-15-april-1976"},"wordCount":2662,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-university-chandigarh-vs-vijay-singh-lamba-etc-etc-on-15-april-1976#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-university-chandigarh-vs-vijay-singh-lamba-etc-etc-on-15-april-1976","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-university-chandigarh-vs-vijay-singh-lamba-etc-etc-on-15-april-1976","name":"Punjab University, Chandigarh vs Vijay Singh Lamba Etc. Etc on 15 April, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1976-04-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-03T19:34:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-university-chandigarh-vs-vijay-singh-lamba-etc-etc-on-15-april-1976#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-university-chandigarh-vs-vijay-singh-lamba-etc-etc-on-15-april-1976"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/punjab-university-chandigarh-vs-vijay-singh-lamba-etc-etc-on-15-april-1976#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Punjab University, Chandigarh vs Vijay Singh Lamba Etc. Etc on 15 April, 1976"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/188521","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=188521"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/188521\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=188521"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=188521"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=188521"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}