# Amit Anand Singh v. The V.C., B.H.U., Varanasi and others

- **Citation:** (2007) 1 ILRA 69
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-09-19
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43672 of 2006
- **Bench:** S.N. Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/amit-anand-singh-v-the-v-c-b-h-u-varanasi-and-others-40884
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Principle
of Natural Justice-recording reasonspetitioner while appearing B.A. Part III
examination
of
Geography
subjectgeometry box on its oversize offending
material,
recovered-after
receiving
report from invigilator-without issuing
show cause notice without charge sheet
without
offering
any
opportunitywithout
recording
any
reasonpunishment
order
can
not
sustainstatutory committee being quasi-judicial
authority held-bound to give reasons.

Held: Para 16

It would thus be eloquent that the
statutory committee, which was dealing
with
the
matter
of
unfair
means
allegedly employed by the petitioner in
attempting
questions,
being
quasijudicial authority was to act judicially
and was bound to give reasons, the duty
to give reasons being an incident of the
judicial process and to decide the matter
on the facts of the case, on the material
before them and by applying legal norms
to factual situations. There is no order at
all on record, not to speak of a reasoned
order-evidencing the fact that requisite
material was taken into reckoning by the
Committee. As no reasons are given in
the
decision
of
the
Unfair-means
Committee, which is a creation of
statute, the order impugned herein is
liable to be quashed. It thus leaves no
manner of doubt that the petitioner was
not given any opportunity and there is
also non-application of mind. Since no
reasons have been given, the impugned
order suffers from error apparent on the
face of the record and is liable to be
quashed.
Case law discussed:
1973 (2) SCC-936
1979 (2) SCC-368
1979 (4) SCC-594
1979 (4) SCC-537
AIR 1979

## Text

1 All] Amit Anand Singh V. The V.C., B.H.U., Varanasi and others
69
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.09.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.N. SRIVASTAVA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43672 of 2006

Amit Anand Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
The Vice Chancellor, Banaras Hindu University
Varanasi and others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ajay Shanker

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V.B. Singh
Sri Hem Pratap Singh
Sri Panak Naqvi

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Principle
of Natural Justice-recording reasonspetitioner while appearing B.A. Part III
examination
of
Geography
subjectgeometry box on its oversize offending
material,
recovered-after
receiving
report from invigilator-without issuing
show cause notice without charge sheet
without
offering
any
opportunitywithout
recording
any
reasonpunishment
order
can
not
sustainstatutory committee being quasi-judicial
authority held-bound to give reasons.

Held: Para 16

It would thus be eloquent that the
statutory committee, which was dealing
with
the
matter
of
unfair
means
allegedly employed by the petitioner in
attempting
questions,
being
quasijudicial authority was to act judicially
and was bound to give reasons, the duty
to give reasons being an incident of the
judicial process and to decide the matter
on the facts of the case, on the material
before them and by applying legal norms
to factual situations. There is no order at
all on record, not to speak of a reasoned
order-evidencing the fact that requisite
material was taken into reckoning by the
Committee. As no reasons are given in
the
decision
of
the
Unfair-means
Committee, which is a creation of
statute, the order impugned herein is
liable to be quashed. It thus leaves no
manner of doubt that the petitioner was
not given any opportunity and there is
also non-application of mind. Since no
reasons have been given, the impugned
order suffers from error apparent on the
face of the record and is liable to be
quashed.
Case law discussed:
1973 (2) SCC-936
1979 (2) SCC-368
1979 (4) SCC-594
1979 (4) SCC-537
AIR 1979

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.N. Srivastava, J.)

1. Impugned herein is the office
memorandum/order
dated
10.4.2006
issued by the Examination Controller,
Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi by
which it was intimated to the petitioner
that his entire examination in which the
petitioner has already appeared or which
he is likely to appear in future during the
current examination has been cancelled.

2. The facts forming background to
the case are that on 5.4.2006, while the
petitioner was writing answer to the
question paper (Geography of B.A. Part
III), a geometry box was recovered from
his possession by the flying squad
alleging further that on its obverse-side,
the offending copying material was found
written. It is averred in the writ petition
that the petitioner was not afforded any
opportunity either by way of hearing or
by requiring him to explain his stand and
further that the entire proceeding was
carried out in a post-haste manner and
ultimately, by means of impugned order,
70 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
he
was
intimated
that
his
entire
examination which he has appeared and
which he is likely to appear in future has
been cancelled upon consideration of the
decision
taken
by
Unfair
Means
Committee of the University. It is in this
backdrop that the present writ petition has
been preferred by the petitioner.

The
petition
was
argued
on
11.8.2006 on which date the learned
counsel for the University was enjoined to
file counter affidavit and also to produce
the entire material relating to unfair
means on the date fixed. The entire
original record relating to proceeding of
Unfair Means Committee has been
annexed to the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the University.

3. The learned counsel for the
petitioner began his submission arguing
that the petitioner was not afforded any
opportunity of hearing and the entire
proceeding was carried out in a rushed
hole and corner manner against the
provisions of the statute. The learned
counsel denied having employed any
unfair means in answering the question
paper and also repudiated the claim that
the geometry box belonged to me. Per
contra, learned counsel for the University
contended
that
the
invigilator
had
recovered the geometry box from the
possession of the petitioner on which
copying material was found written and
further that the material found written on
the box related to question no.3 of the
paper being answered by the petitioner.
The learned counsel also drew attention of
the Court to the fact the answer script was
immediately
withdrawn
from
the
petitioner and he was supplied ''B'
answer-sheet and requisite form was also
filled up by the invigilator forming part of
the flying squad and also the invigilator
on duty in the prescribed column. He
further contended that the petitioner was
afforded
sufficient
opportunity
of
submitting
written
explanation
in
accordance with the provisions of the
statute and further that he admitted in his
own hand-writing that he had written the
material on the box by mistake which is
not related to the subject. He also drew
attention to the report of the examiner
which vouchsafed the fact that material
had bearing on the subject matter of the
question paper being answered by the
petitioner on the date.

4. An exhaustive counter affidavit
has been filed annexing therewith the
entire papers relating to the proceeding in
the matter of use of unfair means by the
petitioner have been annexed. Annexure
no.1 is the form for reporting case of
unfair practice. From a close scrutiny, it
would appear that the incident relating to
unfair means occurred on 5.4.2006 at 9
a.m. In the column requiring mention of
details
of
specific
complaint,
the
expression-dated
5.4.2006
is
"The
candidate has written on the geometry
box and enclosed signed by me." From a
further scrutiny of the form it would also
appear that the same day it was forwarded
for
necessary
action
by
the
two
Invigilators. In the self-same form, it is
written in the hand-writing of the
petitioner that "Me Galti Se Box Par
Likha Tha Vo Vishai Se Sambandhit
Nahin Hai." This statement of the
petitioner is shown to have been written
in the presence of the invigilator and it
also bears the signature of the two
invigilators. In part C of the Form, there is
a note appended by the superintendent of
Examinations to the effect "Forwarded
for necessary action". This note also
1 All] Amit Anand Singh V. The V.C., B.H.U., Varanasi and others
71
bears the date 5.4.2006. Annexure C.A. II
is the Certificate of Scrutiny bearing
signature of the examiner and it would
appear that the examiner has certified the
same day i.e. 5.4.2006 that the resource
material is related to the concerned
examination and that the examinee had
actually made use of the resource material
in his answer book in question number
no.3. It would further appear from its
perusal that the Unfair Means Committee
held the meeting on the same day i.e.
5.4.2006 in which decision was taken to
cancel the entire examination. In the same
annexure is contained the proceeding of
unfair means committee in which it is
shown
that
eight
members
had
participated. The proceeding of unfair
means committee is excerpted below.

"The candidate was given due
opportunity to explain his version through
Scheduled-I Part-B (Unfair means form),
which was duly considered by the
Committee.
The committee also considered the
reports/charges
made
against
the
examinees as detailed. Further committee
also scrutinized the relevant papers on
record and the concerned answer books.
The recommendations made by the
Committee are serialized in the Annexure1."

Though in all eight members are
shown to have participated in the
meeting, the proceeding bears only three
signatures.

5. Before analytically examining the
matter, it would be appropriate to
acquaint myself with the relevant Rules
contained in the Statute of the University
which are quoted below.

"1.13.2. No candidate shall bring with
him into the examination room/hall any
book, notes or, other materials capable of
being used by him in connection with the
examination, nor shall he communicate to
or receive from any other candidate any
information in the examination room/hall.
1.13.3. No candidate shall assist or
received
assistance
from
any
other
candidate at in examination or adopt any
unfair means to further his/her interest in
connection with an examination.
1.13.4. No person shall adopt any unfair
practice to further or adversely affect the
interests of an examinee or indulge in acts
which interfere with the property conduct
of examinations.
1.13.6.
The
superintendent
of
the
examinations shall give him/her an
opportunity
to
submit
a
written
explanation
on
the
prescribed
form................
x
x
 x
 x
8.13.8 In the event of detection of use of
unfair means by a large number of
examinees or in the event of refusal by
examinee
to
give
statement,
the
invigilator/superintendent shall submit a
confidential report to that effect to the
controller
of
examinations
and
the
University shall take suitable disciplinary
against the examinee on the basis of
confidential report. In such cases the
names of the Invigilator/superintendent
making
the
report
shall
be
kept
confidential.

8.13.9.
The
written
explanations
submitted by an examinee alleged to have
violated the provision of clauses 2,3 and 4
a confidential report under the provisions
of clause 8 shall be placed before the Vice
Chancellor
for
suitable
disciplinary
action.
72 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
8.13.10. If the allegations against an
examinee is found correct he/she will be
liable to disciplinary action.

6. A close perusal of the above rules
would reveal that in the event of
allegations against an examinee of using
unfair-means are found to have been
proved, he will be liable to disciplinary
action. In clause 8.13.9 it is postulated
that the written explanation submitted by
an examinee alleged to have violated the
provision of clauses 2,3 and 4 a
confidential report under the provision of
clause 8 shall be placed before the Vice
Chancellor
for
suitable
disciplinary
action.

7. From a perusal of the various
annexures
annexed
to
the
counter
affidavit, it would transpire that the entire
proceeding was taken to completion
within a span of one day ending up in the
decision of cancellation of examination.
The
question
now
arises
whether
proceeding was violative of principles of
natural justice and whether the petitioner
was given opportunity to explain his stand
especially regard being had to the fact that
any
action
consequent
upon
the
proceeding would be fraught with grave
consequence putting the future of the
petitioner at stake who is at the threshold
of his career.

8. It brooks no dispute that the
Unfair Means Committee constituted by
the University being creation of the
Statute, is a statutory body and it is bound
to abide by what constitutes "opportunity"
of hearing. It would appear from the
record
that
immediately
after
the
geometry box containing written material
on its back had been recovered, it is clear
from the record that the petitioner's
explanation was had on the prescribed
form which is to the effect that he had
mistakenly written on the geometry box
attended with further explanation that the
writing on the geometry box did not relate
to the subject matter of the question
paper. The examiner's report is also
contained in the printed form in question
and answer manner. In the certificate of
scrutiny the examiner has right-marked all
the three queries showing that the
resource material related to question no.3.
Although the proceeding annexed as
annexure 2 to the counter affidavit did
show that the committee considered the
reports/charges
made
against
the
examinees and further scrutinized the
relevant papers on record and the
concerned answer books and also the
recommendations
made
by
the
Committee, there is nothing on record to
manifest that any such material alleged to
have been considered by the committee
was at all taken into reckoning. It is also
manifested from the record that no charge
sheet was issued nor any show cause
notice was issued to petitioner after
receipt of the report from invigilator and
further no explanation was had from the
petitioner. It therefore, transpires that the
impugned order was passed without
considering whatever explanation was
obtained at the time of the examination.

9. Now I proceed to examine
whether the entire matter relating to unfair
means has been considered in accordance
with the mandate of the statute and that
the
petitioner
has
been
afforded
reasonable opportunity of hearing in the
matter to vindicate his stand.

10. The court can certainly examine
whether the decision making process was
reasonable, rationale and not arbitrary on
1 All] Amit Anand Singh V. The V.C., B.H.U., Varanasi and others
73
the facts and circumstances. This Court
now proceeds to examine whether the
Committee
was
a
statutory
body
exercising quasi judicial function and
whether the alleged decision rendered by
it in the matter was reasonable, rationale
and informed with reasons observing in
compliance the principles of natural
justice.

11. The Committee dealing with
unfair means matter of a student is a
statutory committee having imprimatur of
the Act and the statute of Banaras Hindu
University and by this reckoning it is a
body performing quasi-judicial functions.
Every authority exercising quasi-judicial
functions is bound to give reasons in
support of the order he makes. The
essence of the settled position is that
examining the question on principle why
every quasi-judicial order must be a
speaking order. The necessity of giving
reasons flows as a necessary corollary
form the rule of law, which constitutes
one of the basic principles of the
Constitutional set up. They must decide
solely on the facts of the particular case,
solely on the material before them and
apart from any extraneous considerations
by applying pre-existing legal norms to
factual situations. It was further observed
that now the necessity of giving reasons is
an
important
safeguard
to
ensure
observance of the duty to act judicially. It
introduces clarity, checks the introduction
of extraneous or irrelevant considerations
and excludes or at any rate, minimizes
arbitrariness in the decision making
process.

12. The provisions afore-quoted
clearly envisage that the Committee shall
reckon with the report about the candidate
having been found in possession of
unauthorized material, the reply of the
candidate to the notice, the report of
examiner
concerned
regarding
the
transcription or non-transcription of the
unauthorized material of which the
candidate
was
allegedly
found
in
possession. At page 18 of Annexure
C.A.2,
the
recommendation
of
the
Committee signed by Chairman and
member is contained. There is no
discussion and all that the Committee has
done is to right-mark query no.2 the
substance of which "entire examination
be cancelled". Likewise Annexure 4 is
the paper stated to be recommendation of
the Committee forwarded to the Vice
Chancellor and at the end of this paper,
what is couched is "examined and
approved". It does not appear from the
materials on record whether any reply of
the petitioner was had and whether it has
been taken into reckoning. Furthermore,
there is no order canceling the result
passed by the Vice Chancellor.

13. In Union of India v. Mohan
Lal Capoor (1973) 2 SCC 936, the Apex
Court in a Bench of two Judges held in
paragraph 28 that the reasons are the links
between the materials on which certain
conclusions are based to the actual
conclusions. They disclose how mind is
applied to the subject matter for a
decision,
whether
it
is
purely
administrative or quasi judicial. They
would reveal nexus between the facts
considered and the conclusions reached.
This view was reiterated in Gurdial
Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab (1979) 2
SCC 368. In S.N. Mukherjee v. Union
of India (1990) 4 SCC 594, the
Constitution Bench of the Apex Court
surveyed the entire case law and held in
para 40 that except in cases where the
requirement has been dispensed with
74 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
expressly or by necessary implication, an
administrative
authority
exercising
judicial or quasi judicial functions is
required to record the reasons for its
decision. In para 36 of the said decision, it
was further held that recording of reasons
excludes chances of arbitrariness and
ensures a degree of fairness in the process
of decision-making. The said principle
would apply equally to all decisions and
its
applications
cannot
confined
to
decisions which are subject to appeal,
revision or judicial review. It is not
required that the reasons should be as
elaborate as in the decision of a court of
law. In Mazharul Islam Hashmi v. State
of U.P. & Anr (1979) 4 SCC 537, the
Apex Court pointed out that "Every
person must know what he is to meet and
he must have opportunity of meeting that
case. The legislature, however, can
exclude operation of these principles
expressly or implicitly. But in the absence
of any such exclusion, the principle of
natural justice will have to be proved." In
Ghazanfar Rashid v. Secretary Board
of High School and Intermediate
Education, U.P. AIR 1979 All 209, a
Full Bench of this Court dealing with the
proof of the charge of use of unfair means
at the examination, held that it was the
duty of the Examination committee to
maintain purity of examination and if
examinee is found to have used unfair
means at the examination, it is the duty of
the Examination Committee to take action
against the erring examinees to maintain
the educational standard. It was further
observed that direct evidence is available
in some cases but in a large number of
cases direct evidence is not available. In
that situation the Examination committee
has of necessity to rely on circumstantial
evidence which may include the answer
given by the examinee, the report of the
Superintendent
of
the
center,
the
invigilator and the report of the experts
and other attending circumstances. The
Examination Committee, if it relies upon
such evidence to come to the conclusion
that the examinee has used unfair means
in answering questions then it is not open
to the High Court to interfere with the
decision merely because the High Court
may take a different view on reassessment
of those circumstances. While it is open
to the High Court to interfere with the
order of the quasi judicial authority, if it
is not supported by any evidence or if the
order is passed in contravention of the
statutory provisions of the law or in
violation of the principles of natural
justice, the court has no jurisdiction to
quash the order merely on the ground that
the evidence available on record is
insufficient or inadequate or on the
ground that different view could possibly
taken on the evidence available on the
record. The above decision has been cited
with approval in the following decision.
In
Maharashtra
State
Board
of
Secondary
and
Higher
Secondary
Education v. K.S.Gandhi and others
(1991) 2 SCC 716, the Apex Court held
as under:

"The reasons are harbinger between
the mind of the maker of the order to the
controversy in question and the decision
or conclusions arrived at. They also
exclude the chances to reach arbitrary,
whimsical or capricious decision or
conclusion. The reasons assure an inbuilt
support
to
the
conclusion/decision
reached. When an order affects the right
of a citizen or a person, irrespective of the
fact whether it is a quasi judicial or
administrative order, and unless the rule
expressly or by necessary implication
excludes recording of reasons, it is
1 All] Amit Anand Singh V. The V.C., B.H.U., Varanasi and others
75
germane and precise relevant reasons as
apart
of
fair
procedure.
In
an
administrative decision, its order/decision
itself may not contain reasons. It may not
be the requirement of the rules, but at the
least, the record should disclose reasons.
It may not be like a judgment. The extent
and nature of the reasons would depend
on particular facts and circumstances.
What is necessary is that the reasons are
clear and explicit so as to indicate that
the authority has given due consideration
to the points in controversy. The need for
recording of reasons is greater in a case
where the order is passed at the original
stage. ..."(Emphasis supplied).

14. In Ghanshyam Das Gupta's
case (1962) Supp 2 SCR 36, the
examination results of three candidates
were cancelled and the Apex Court held
that they should have received an
opportunity of explaining their conduct. It
was also said that even if the enquiry
involved a large number of persons, the
Committee
should
frame
proper
regulations for the conduct of such
inquiries but not deny the opportunity.

15. In R.P. Bhatt v. Union of India
(1986) 2 SCC 651, the Apex Court while
interpreting Rule 27 (2) of the Central
Civil Services (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules, 1965 held that the word
''consider' in Rule 27 (2) of the Rules
implied ''due application of mind'. It
was further held that the appellate
authority
discharging
quasi-judicial
functions in accordance with natural
justice must give reasons for its decision.
In Ram Chander v. Union of India
(1986) 3 SCC, 103, the Apex Court held
that the duty to give reasons is an
incident of the judicial process. In
Divisional Personnel officer, Southern
Railway v. T.R. Chellappan, (1976) 3
SCC, the essence of what has been held
by the Apex court was that the terms
''consider' postulates consideration of all
the aspects, the pros and cons of the
matter after hearing the aggrieved person.
In Barium Chemicals Ltd v. A.J. Rana,
(1972) SC 591, the Apex Court reckoned
into consideration the dictionary meaning
of the word ''consider' which according to
Shorter Oxford Dictionary means ''to
review attentively, to survey, examine,
inspection,
to
look
attentively,
to
contemplate mentally, to think over,
mediate on, give heed to, take note of, to
think deliberately, bethink oneself to,
reflect. Again the Court consulted Words
and Phrases-Permanent Edition Vol. 9-A
according to which the word ''consider'
means to think with care. It is also
mentioned that to ''consider' is to fix the
mind upon with a view to careful
examination; to ponder; study; mediate
upon, think or reflect with care.

16. It would thus be eloquent that
the statutory committee, which was
dealing with the matter of unfair means
allegedly employed by the petitioner in
attempting questions, being quasi-judicial
authority was to act judicially and was
bound to give reasons, the duty to give
reasons being an incident of the judicial
process and to decide the matter on the
facts of the case, on the material before
them and by applying legal norms to
factual situations. There is no order at all
on record, not to speak of a reasoned
order-evidencing the fact that requisite
material was taken into reckoning by the
Committee. As no reasons are given in the
decision of the Unfair-means Committee,
which is a creation of statute, the order
impugned herein is liable to be quashed. It
thus leaves no manner of doubt that the
76 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
petitioner was not given any opportunity
and there is also non-application of mind.
Since no reasons have been given, the
impugned
order
suffers
from
error
apparent on the face of the record and is
liable to be quashed.

17. As a result of foregoing
discussion, the writ petition succeeds and
is allowed and the impugned order dated
10.4.2006 is quashed. The Opposite party
is
directed
to
declare
result
after
evaluation of answer-sheets.

18. In the facts and circumstances of
the case, there would be no order as to
costs.

Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.09.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMITAVA LALA, J.
THE HON'BLE V.C. MISRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.39727 of 2006

Dr. Ramanand

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Suneet Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ramanand Pandey
Sri Abhishek Kumar
Sri R.S. Sengar
S.C.

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Transfer
Order-Challenged
as-without
jurisdiction-petitioner a class-II officerChief Medical Officer on the letter of
such minister having no concerned with
medical Department-No. G.O. or circular
produced empowering C.M.O. to pass
transfer order of a class-II officers-heldorder of Transfer without jurisdiction can
not be-sustained.

Held: Para 5

We are of the opinion that since no
Government
Order
available
to
the
concerned C.M.O. at the relevant point of
time, it appears that passing of the order
of transfer was without jurisdiction,
therefore,
such
order
cannot
be
sustained. Hence the impugned order
stands quashed.
Case law discussed:
2003 (11) SCC-740
2005 (3) SCC-153
2002 (1) UPLBEC-369
2004 (III) UPLBEC-2225

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amitava Lala, J.)

Amitava Lala, J.- 1. The petitioner has
challenged the order of transfer dated 6th
July, 2006 taking two grounds i.e. (i) mala
fide
(ii)
without
jurisdiction.
The
petitioner contended specifically taking
two points, first that Chief Medical
Officer (hereinafter called as C.M.O.) had
no jurisdiction on 6th July, 2006 to
transfer him from one place to another
within the district. We find from the
annexure-5 of the rejoinder affidavit that
C.M.O. is entrusted with such power only
from 31st July, 2006. State has contended
by filing counter affidavit that such power
of the C.M.O. was preexisting from 22nd
April, 1987. We have gone through the
same and found that it will be applicable
only in respect of Class-C and Class-D
officers. So far as the clause-5 order
impugned in vernacular is concerned,
although the Government Order will be
applicable in general, but for the later part
of such Government Order it implies that
there is a confusion whether the Level I
and Level II officers can be transferred or
not. Petitioner contended that he is a