WP/23521/2004 of M. Anjaneyulu, Vs The Commissioner, on 30 December 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO : 23521 of 2004

Between:

1 M. Anjaneyulu, S/o M. Narasimhulu,

2 V. Anjan Reddy, S/o V.C. Gangireddy,

R/o Venkapalli Village,

3 M. Gopal, S/o M. Anjinappa,

R/o Nagecheruvu village.

4 B. Vinod Kumar, S/o B. Nagaraju,

R/o C.K. Palli village,

5 K. Chiranjeevi, S/oK. Nagabhushanam,

Polepalli Village

6 K. Ravi, S/o K. Nagabhushanam,

R/o R. Kothapalli village,

7 V. Narayanaswamy, S/o V. Adinarayana,

R/o Tlhumparthy village,

8 C.Murali, S/o C.C Dugganna,

R/o Polepalli Village,

9 P.Kondanna, s/o P. Peddanna,

R/o Dharmavaram village,

10 K. Murali, S/o K. Subbarayudu,

R/o Nasonakota village,

11 C. Harinarayana, s/o Narayana Kristappa, R/o Narpala Village, 12 B. Mallikarjuna, S/o B. Yajjanna, R/o Dharmavaram Village, 13 P. Mareppa, S/o P. Mareppa, Pothukunta village, 14 G. Chenna Reddy, S/o G. Narapareddy, R/o Amudalakunta, 15 N. Chandrasekhar, S/o N. Ramakrishna, R/o Ramagiri village, 16 N. Muthyalanna, s/o Marenna, R/o Peruru village, 17 K. Vijayakumar Naik, s/o K. Ramawamy Naik, R/o Gangenepalli Thanda, 18 Y. Saiganesh, s/o Y. Venkatachalapathi, R/o Dharmavram village, Peddapalli village, R/o Mamillapalli Village, 19 M. Seena Naik, s/o M. Bugga Naik, 20 L. Hanumanth Reddy, S/osL. Venkata Reddy, 21 K. Syamsunder, S/o K. Sivaprasad, R/o Dharmavaram village,, 22 D. Dadavali, s/o D. Alla Bakash, R/o Penukonda village, (All the above petitioners are students and belongs to Ananthapur District).

..... PETITIONERS

AND

1 The Commissioner, Employment and Training Department, Burugula Ramakrishna Rao Bhavan, 3rd Floor, Hyderabad.

2 The Deputy Director, (Exams), Employment and Training Department, Burugula Ramakrishna Rao Bhavan, 3rd Floor, Hyderabad.

3 Sri Sai Ram Industrial Training Centre, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District.

.....RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleasedto issue a Writ or Order or direction, preferable to the nature of Writ ofMandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in debarring thepetitioners at the time of declaration of results from the subject of "Engineeringdrawing" of Electrician Trade course and further action of the respondents indebarring the petitioners for two subsequent examinations even thoughpetitioners have not committed any malpractice in the examinations aspetitioners were not booked for any malpractice during the examinations,without giving any notice, without giving an opportunity, behind the back of thepetitioners, as highly illegal, unwarranted, in gross violation of principles ofnatural justice , basic canons of justice and in violation of Article 14, 19 and 21of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to declarethe results of the petitioners by set a siding the above said debarred orders dt.6-12-2004 and pass such other order or orders.

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY

Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2: GP FOR EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING

The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER:

Petitioners are students of Industrial Training course. They have appeared inthe All India Trade Test paper-II on 22.07.2004. The results of the batch weredeclared on 06.12.2004. Against the names of the petitioners, it was indicatedthat they are debarred for two subsequent examinations and that they areeligible to appear only in February 2006. The petitioners state that they werenot issued any notices before they were debarred, much less an enquiry washeld.

In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that duringthe course of valuation of answer scripts of the paper “Engineering Drawing”, itwas noticed that the petitioners have resorted to mosscopying and their writingand drawings were found to be similar with each other. It was stated that theCommittee constituted for this purpose examined the matter and decided toimpose the punishment of debar on the petitioners for a period of two years.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader forEmployment & Training.

The petitioners appeared in the examinations conducted by the respondentsfrom 22.07.2004 to 31.07.2004. In the results that were declared on 06.12.2004,the petitioners were declared to have failed in the subject “EngineeringDrawing” and they were also debarred for two subsequent examinations. It isnot in dispute that the respondents did not conduct any enquiry nor issued anynotice to the petitioners before this action was taken. The principles of naturaljustice demand and mandate that before any stigma is attached to any studentor any order debarring from examination is passed, the authority concerned has to issue a notice to such student, intimating him the reasons on the basis ofwhich the action is proposed to be taken. The Supreme Court as well as theHigh Courts, time and again, held that any action taken in violation of principlesof natural justice in such matters would vitiate the entire proceedings. The factthat the respondents constituted a Committee and verified the answer scripts ofthe petitioners is hardly of any help. It is fundamental that the petitioners beinformed of the allegations against them and be given an opportunity to explainthe accusations against them.

Hence, this writ petition is allowed on the short ground that the petitioners werenot issued show cause notices. The order of debarring them from appearing inthe examinations is set aside. It is, however, left open to the respondents totake necessary action, if they wish, duly following the procedure prescribed bylaw. In case, no notices are issued to the petitioners within four weeks fromtoday, they shall be entitled to pay the fee and appear in the next examinations.There shall be no order as to costs.

----------------------

30.12.2004

ksld

To

1 The Commissioner, Employment and Training Department, Burugula Ramakrishna Rao Bhavan, 3rd Floor, Hyderabad. Burugula Ramakrishna Rao Bhavan, 3rd Floor, Hyderabad.

2 The Deputy Director, (Exams), Employment and Training Department, 3 Two CCs. to the G.P. for Employment and Training, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT).

4 Two CD copies.