Allahabad High Court: In a writ petition filed by student, the petitioner, assailing the order by the Luckow University, that had cancelled petitioner’s examination from 2009 based on allegations of transplantation of answer sheets and later passed the impugned order allowing her to sit in the examinations, but not communicating such order to the petitioner, Alok Mathur, J., allowed the writ petition and said that there was no definitive conclusion with regard to culpability of petitioner, and directed the respondents to pay a sum of Rs 2 lakhs to the petitioner as compensation for the callous and negligent actions of the Lucknow University
Background
The petitioner was a 3rd year student pursuing her B.Sc. degree when she appeared for the examinations held in 2009. When the results were declared, the petitioner’s result had been withheld on account of allegations of manipulation of answer sheets in six subjects against the petitioner.
Despite repeated attempts made by the petitioner, no action was taken by Lucknow University regarding her score in answer sheets, neither was any order passed that would indicate the petitioner’s misconduct due to which the said examination was cancelled.
The petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 20-02-2010 by the respondent, passed by the Controller of Examination, whereby the petitioner was asked to respond to the allegations that the answer sheets were transplanted, within a period of 15 days. The petitioner duly responded to the show cause notice denying all allegations and stating that she was never made aware of any such allegations before. Thereafter, Lucknow University did not communicate any decision in pursuance of the show cause notice given to the petitioner.
An Examination Committee which was constituted by Lucknow University decided on 21-05-2012 that the petitioner would be permitted to appear as an exempted candidate in the year 2012-13 and the examinations conducted in the year 2009 would stand cancelled. However, such decision was never communicated to the petitioner, as a result of which she could not appear for the examination conducted in 2012-13.
In the meantime, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Court, during the hearing of which Lucknow University informed the Court that a decision in this regard had been taken by it on 15-11-2014. Upon the petitioner being informed of such decision, she prayed for dismissal of the writ with liberty to file fresh petition assailing the decision of the respondent.
Decision and Analysis
Upon hearing parties, the Court noted that there was nothing in the impugned order to show that the petitioner had transplanted the answer sheets and was guilty of misconduct. The Committee was of the view that, there was a possibility that theci answer sheets had been transplanted, however, no fact leading to such presumption was recorded in the impugned order.
The Court said that Lucknow University had cancelled examinations merely on the basis of presumption, surmises and conjectures. The Court further noted that a cryptic show cause notice was served upon the petitioner merely levelling allegations against the petitioner without even supplying a photocopy of the answer sheets, on the basis of which the allegations were made. In the said show cause notice, a mention had been made to an inquiry which was conducted previously where the allegations against the petitioner were found to be true. However, the inquiry report was neither submitted to the petitioner nor did the same find mention in the show cause notice. The Court further observed that the Lucknow University could not conclusively hold the petitioner culpable for any transplantation of the answer sheets, and remarked, “mere possibility can never be a substitute for coming to a definitive conclusion with regard to the culpability of the petitioner being involved in transplantation of the answer sheet which could have been a misconduct, had the same been proved by the authority concerned”.
The Court observed that respondents were in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and such proceedings could not be sustained.
Regarding the non-communication of the impugned order to the petitioner, the Court observed that non-communication of an order renders the same non-est and non-existing and no action could be taken in furtherance of an order which has not been communicated to the party concerned.
The Court referred to Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 11 wherein it was held that an administrative order would take effect from the date it is communicated to the person concerned or had been otherwise published in the appropriate manner.
The Court further referred to Laxminarayan R. Bhattad v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 5 SCC 413 wherein it was said that a right created under an order of a statutory authority must be communicated to the person concerned to confer an enforceable right.
The Court said that the manner of conducting inquiry by the respondents had been illegal, arbitrary and no opportunity had been given to the petitioner. Further, the impugned order was passed 3 years after the incident, depriving the petitioner from sitting in the examinations in her 3rd year and even pursuing further education, to which she may have been entitled to.
The Court observed that the action of Lucknow University was not only in violation of principles of natural justice but also had a deleterious effect on the future of the candidate, and merely permitting the petitioner to sit for the examinations in 2014-15 did not in any way justify the negligent and careless conduct of the respondent.
The Court added that no opportunity had been given to the petitioner nor was there any definite finding with regard to the culpability of the petitioner, coupled with the fact that the order dated 21-05-2012 had not been communicated to the petitioner which resulted in her not being able to sit for examinations in the year 2012-13. Thus, the Court held Lucknow University responsible for ruining the career of petitioner without there being any definite and concrete finding of misconduct in the alleged transplantation of answer sheets.
The Court, therefore, allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order, except for the clause that provided for conducting inquiry. The Court further directed Lucknow University to pay the petitioner a cost of Rs 2 lakhs within two months from the date the certified copy of the order was produced before the concerned authority, as compensation for the inconvenience and anguish suffered by the petitioner at the hands of the respondent.
[Priyanka Dubey v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine All 3836, decided on 10-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Advocate for the petitioner: – Avinash Chandra, Sukumar Srivastava, Advocates
Advocate for the State: – Savitra Vardhan Singh, C.S.C.
