Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KARAN CHAND versus PUNJAB TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


KARAN CHAND v. PUNJAB TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY & Ors - CWP-18956-2005 [2005] RD-P&H 305 (21 December 2005)

CWP No.18956 of 2005 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP No.18956 of 2005 (O&M)

Date of decision: 13.12.2005

Karan Chand ... Petitioner.

Versus

Punjab Technical University and others ..Respondents.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.S. KHEHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL

Present: Mr. O.P. Hoshiarpuri, Advocate for the petitioner.

J.S. Khehar, J.

Civil Misc.No.20929 of 2005 is allowed. Statements made by 35 students collectively appended to the instant application as Annexure P8 are taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

The petitioner is depicted as a brilliant student, having scored 90 percent marks in the Matriculation examination during the academic session 2000-2001. He is also depicted to be an excellent sports person, inasmuch, as he was awarded the best sports man of the year award by St.

Joseph Boys School, Jalandhar. In the academic career of the petitioner, he CWP No.18956 of 2005 (O&M) 2

is stated to have scored 68 percent marks in 10+2 examination, whereupon, he was successful in obtaining admission to the B.Tech (Electronics and Communication Engineer) course at the D.A.V. Institute of Engineering and Technology, Kabir Nagar, Jalandhar.

The controversy in the present case pertains to the unfair means case made out against the petitioner, when he was appearing in the subject of "EC-208 EMFT" (which is a part of the curriculum of the fifth semester, of the course under reference) on 23.5.2005. The allegation levelled against the petitioner was, that he was in possession of 3 incriminating slips when he was appearing for the examination on 23.5.2005. It is alleged, that the aforesaid slips were detected by the Invigilator posted in the room where the petitioner was taking his examination, from under the thigh of the petitioner.

It was deposed by Shri Gangandeep Sharma, Invigilator, that during the course of the examination by the Unfair Means Committee, that he required the petitioner to stand up when the petitioner was in the process of answering his question paper on 23.5.2005. When the petitioner stood up, he found three slips under his thigh. These three slips were taken into possession by the Invigilator, and the matter was reported to the Centre Superintendent, Shri Vipan Kumar, the Centre Superintendent, deposed before the Unfair Means Committee, that the petitioner informed him that CWP No.18956 of 2005 (O&M) 3

he had brought the slips to the examination centre inadvertently. It also needs to be noticed, that the petitioner signed a statement recorded soon after the three incriminatory slips were taken from him, acknowledging that the slips had been recovered from him. In his defence before the Unfair Means Committee, as well as before the appellate Committee, the contention of the petitioner was, that he had taken the slips to the examination centre inadvertently and had voluntarily handed over the said slips to the invigilating staff, when an announcement was made in the room where the petitioner was taking the examination on 23.5.2005. In order to authenticate his statement, the petitioner produced Shri Kamal Kishore, Deputy Centre Superintendent of the examination as well as another co- candidate who was also appearing in the same examination on 23.5.2005 These two witnesses, reiterated the factual position asserted by the petitioner. Additionally, the petitioner placed on the record of the Appellate Committee, the sworn statements of 35 students sitting in the same room, in which the petitioner had taken the examination, on 23.5.2005. All these students reiterated the position expressed by the petitioner, namely, that an announcement was made in the Examination Centre, and that, the petitioner voluntarily handed over the slips to the invigilating staff, after the said announcement.

CWP No.18956 of 2005 (O&M) 4

The Unfair Means Committee, as well as the Appellate Committee, accepted the statements of the Invigilator as well as the Centre Superintendent, and rejected the statements of the Deputy Centre Superintendent as well as the 36 other students (who had reiterated the factual position expressed by the petitioner).

The only question that needs to be examined, in the instant case is, whether the action of the petitioner in taking the slips to the examination centre was as a matter of inadvertance on his part, or it was deliberate.

Having considered the factual position in the totality, of the circumstances noticed hereinabove, we have no doubt whatsoever that the slips in possession of the petitioner cannot be accepted to have been taken into the examination hall by an inadvertent act on the part of the petitioner. Had the action been inadvertent, the slips would have remained in one of the pockets of the petitioner, when he commenced to answer the questions posed.

However, it is apparent from the statements of the invigilating staff, that the slips were recovered from the petitioner when he was asked to stand up, from under his thigh. The location of the slips under the petitioner's thigh involves a covert act on the part of the petitioner, of retrieving the slips from his pocket and placing them under his thigh. Thus viewed, it is not possible for us to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner, CWP No.18956 of 2005 (O&M) 5

that his possession of the three incriminating slips was an inadvertent act or as a matter of oversight.

For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in this petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.

( J.S. Khehar )

Judge

(S.N.Aggarwal)

13.12.2005 Judge

vig


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.