WP/26504/2005 of P.Srikanth, Vs N.T.R.University of Health Sciences, on 28 December 2005

ORDER:

The petitioner is a student of M.B.B.S. in the Kakatiya Medical College, Warangalaffiliated to the first respondent-University. He took part-II of the final yearexamination in the month of April, 2005. On 6.4.2005 when he was writing theexamination Surgery Paper-I, the examiner found some objectionable material withthe petitioner and booked a case of malpractice against him. However, he waspermitted to appear in the other examinations.

The first respondent issued a memo dated 20.7.2005 directing the petitioner to showthe cause as to why necessary action shall not be taken against him in view of thefact that the copying material was found with him, during the course of examination.

The petitioner submitted his explanation on 1.8.2005. Thereafter, the first respondentpassed an order dated 5.9.2005 cancelling the appearance of the petitioner in thesaid examinations and disqualified him for appearing in the future examinations for aperiod of one year. The same is challenged in this writ petition.

Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thepetitioner is in the habit of recapitulating his studies till he enters the examinationhall and inadvertently, he did not take away one slip from the pocket. He contendsthat there was not even an allegation that the petitioner used the material, inanswering any question. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Division Benchof this Court in W.A.No.643 of 2005 dated 25.3.2005 he pleaded that mere recoveryof any material without establishing the mala fide intention to use the same cannotconstitute a ground to disqualify the petitioner or for cancellation of the examination.

The learned Standing Counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submits that thepossession of written or printed material by a candidate during the course ofexamination by itself would constitute malpractice and no exception can be taken tothe impugned order.

Basically, in the orders passed by the concerned authorities in relation tomalpractice, this Court would undertake a limited verification, as to the compliancewith the principles of natural justice. The decision, on merits, is virtually left to thediscretion of the authorities. However, where the punishment imposed against thecandidate is not supported by the concerned record, this Court does not hesitate toexamine the matter further.

In the instant case, the respondents issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner andpassed the impugned order after considering of the explanation. To that extent, theproceedings cannot be found fault with.

When it comes to the question of imposition of penalty, it is evident that therespondents themselves permitted the petitioner to appear in the examinationsubsequent to the date of booking of the case. The record does not disclose that thepetitioner was found copying from the material. Therefore, whatever may be thejustification in canceling the performance of the petitioner in the examination held on06.4.2005, cancelling the results for other examinations and disqualifying thepetitioner for one year is not supported by the record or the relevant facts.

For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is partly allowed modifying the orderdated 5.9.2005 to the effect that the performance of the petitioner in the surgerypaper-I held on 6.4.2005 shall stand cancelled. The respondent shall declare theresults of the petitioner in other examinations and permit the petitioner to appear forthe surgery paper-I in the ensuing examinations.

___________

28.12.2005.

mdaa.