# C/M, Lalit Krishna Women Institute of Higher Education, Inderpur, Ballia & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 7 ILRA 361
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-07-11
- **Bench:** Manoj Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-lalit-krishna-women-institute-of-higher-education-inderpur-ballia-anr-v-44073
- **Pages:** 13

## Text

_Characters 0–39,823 of 46,294. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39823 for what follows._

7 All. C/M, Lalit Krishna Women Institute of Higher Education, Inderpur, Ballia & Anr. Vs
 State Of U.P. & Ors.
361
the occurrence witnessed by him-Perhaps it is a sort of a psychological defence mechanism
activated on the spur of the moment."

22. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is evident that ordinarily witnesses are not
expected to depose with mathematical precision. They are expected to give reasonable description
of the incident already occurred. Prosecution is also expected to prove its case beyond all
reasonable doubt. We can not expect prosecution to establish its case beyond any shadow of doubt,
for the simple reason that people can have fanciful doubts regarding anything, in any manner, and
at any stage.

23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal fails and is according dismissed. The
judgment and order passed dated 5.2.1983 passed by then Sessions Judge, Rampur in Sessions Trial
No. 154 of 1982 (State versus Munna) arising out of Case crime no. 287 of 1982, Police Station
Ganj, District Rampur whereby appellant was convicted under section 302 IPC is affirmed. The
trial court is directed to get the appellant arrested and lodge him to jail to serve out the remaining
period of sentence.

24. Let this judgment be certified to the court concerned through the Sessions Judge,
Rampur within two weeks for compliance. Thereafter concerned court shall report compliance
within 30 days.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.07.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Writ C No.- 317 Of 2016

C/M, Lalit Krishna Women Institute of Higher Education, Inderpur, Ballia & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for Petitioners:
Sri Rajeev Misra, Sri Prashant Kumar Tripathi

Counsel for Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Vivek Verma

Education Law -- University Examination -- Mass Copying -- Flying Squad Report -- Competence
of Flying Squad -- Comparison of Answer Scripts -- Inference of Mass Copying -- Lalit Krishna
Women Institute of Higher Education, Inderpur, Ballia, an institution affiliated to Mahatma Gandhi Kashi
Vidyapeeth, Varanasi was made an examination centre for UG courses for the academic session 2014-15 -- on
07.05.2015 the flying squad visited during the Mathematics (Second) Paper examination of B.Sc. 1st year and
362 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

found answers to questions 1 and 8(a) & (b) to be identical in almost all answer scripts -- the Examination
Committee on 03.06.2015 imposed: (a) fine of Rs. 3 lacs; (b) debarment from being an examination centre
for three years; and (c) cancellation of entire result of students who appeared in the first meeting on
07.05.2015 -- Vice Chancellor by order dated 21.12.2015 reaffirmed these penalties after fresh hearing in
compliance with the earlier order of this Court in Writ-C No. 59461 of 2015 -- petitioners challenged this order
contending that the flying squad was not competent to compare answer scripts and infer mass copying; that
the examination had concluded at 10:30 a.m. and the answer bundles were sealed before the flying squad
arrived; and that additional letters were obtained from flying squad members after conclusion of hearing
without confronting petitioners -- Held: the flying squad reached at 10:45 a.m. -- the original report of the
flying squad does not mention that students were found writing their answer scripts -- additional letters
obtained from flying squad members clarifying that examination was continuing at 10:45 a.m. were obtained
after the hearing before the Vice Chancellor concluded on 16.11.2015 -- such additional material could not be
relied upon without confronting the petitioners with the same -- the charge of mass copying on account of
continuation of examination beyond prescribed time cannot be upheld. (Paras 7-13)

Education Law -- Flying Squad -- Guidelines of University -- Mass Copying -- Identical Answers --
Competence to Compare Answer Scripts -- Expert Report -- Held: the guidelines framed by the
University for the flying squad in Clauses 6(a) to (e) and Clause 7 enumerate the specific circumstances in
which the flying squad was empowered to recommend mass copying -- the guidelines do not expressly
empower the flying squad to compare answer scripts and infer mass copying solely on the basis of such
comparison -- however, mere absence of such power does not render the report a waste paper -- the
members of the flying squad being faculty members of the University have sufficient competence to arrive at
a prima facie, though not conclusive, conclusion that answers to certain questions were given in identical
fashion by most of the students -- since the members of the flying squad were not experts in the field of
Mathematics, the proper course for the University was to get an inquiry conducted by an expert body or to
obtain a specific report from the examiner evaluating the answer scripts, before finally concluding that mass
copying had taken place -- a report of an expert evaluating the answer scripts from another University would
also rule out the element of bias. (Paras 14-19)

Education Law -- Expert Report on Answer Scripts -- Dr. Satya Dev Singh -- Re-Examination --
Identification of Defaulting Students -- Punishment -- Cancellation of Entire Result -- Held: during
pendency of the writ petition, this Court directed the University to produce original answer scripts -- the
University had them evaluated by Dr. Satya Dev Singh, Principal, D.A.V. College affiliated to Banaras Hindu
Vishwavidyalaya (an expert in Mathematics) -- he evaluated 98 answer scripts and found that answers to
question Nos. 1(a) and (d) and 8(b) are substantially the same in most scripts -- even the mistakes committed
by the students are similar -- the expert report fortifies that mass copying may have taken place -- however,
the petitioner institution was not given an opportunity to file objections against the expert report of Dr. Satya
Dev Singh -- in interests of justice, the Vice Chancellor must pass a fresh order after considering the entire
material on record including the expert report and objections to be filed by the petitioner institution --
cancellation of entire result of all students without identifying those who actually indulged in mass copying
would be unjust to meritorious students -- result of students not found guilty should be declared -- University
undertook before the Court to hold a re-examination of all students in the paper if it is unable to segregate
students who cheated from those who did not. (Paras 20-27)

Writ Petition Disposed of With Directions -- Writ petition challenging the order dated 21.12.2015 of the
Vice Chancellor, Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi, reaffirming penalties of fine of Rs. 3 lacs,
debarment from examination centre for three years, and cancellation of result of students, disposed of with
the following directions: (a) petitioner institution shall file objections against the report of Dr. Satya Dev Singh
dated 28.03.2016 within two weeks before the Registrar; (b) Vice Chancellor to pass fresh order considering
entire material including the expert report and the objections; (c) if mass copying is established and individual
7 All. C/M, Lalit Krishna Women Institute of Higher Education, Inderpur, Ballia & Anr. Vs
 State Of U.P. & Ors.
363
guilty students are identified, only their result shall be cancelled and result of remaining students declared as
per Examination Committee resolution dated 06.07.2015 without precondition; (d) if guilty students cannot be
separated, University to hold re-examination of all students as per undertaking given before Court; (e) holding
of re-examination without prejudice to action against the institution itself if mass copying is established.
(Paras 28-29)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

1. Lalit Krishna Women Institute of Higher Education, Inderpur, Ballia1 is an educational
institution affiliated to Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi2 (the fourth respondent). It
was made an examination centre by the University for conducting annual examination of
Undergraduate courses during the academic session 2014-15. On 7.5.2015, the flying squad visited
the institution in the first meeting, when Mathematics (Second) Paper examination of B.Sc. 1st
Year was being held. It was followed by a report of the flying squad stating that at 10.45 a.m. when
it reached the institution and compared the answer scripts, it found answers of almost all the
students to question no.1 and 8 (a) & (b) to be identical. The report of the flying squad was placed
before the Examination Committee, which after considering the same in its meeting held on
3.6.2015, concluded that mass copying had taken place in the institution. It, therefore, imposed (a)
a fine of Rs.3 lacs; (b) debarred the institution from being made examination centre for next three
years and (c) cancelled the entire result of the students who had appeared in the examination held in
the first meeting on 7.5.2015. In case the fine is not deposited within three months, proceeding
would be initiated for cancellation of the affiliation of the institution. The decision of the
Examination Committee was communicated by the Registrar by order dated 13.6.2015.

2. The Institution through its committee of management challenged the communication of
the decision of the Examination Committee by the Registrar by filing writ petition3, which was
disposed of by this Court by judgment and order dated 30.6.2015 in terms of the judgment passed
in Writ-C No.35627 of 2015 (C/M Sri Neelam Devi Maha Vidyalaya through its Manager Vs. State
of U.P. and others). The said writ petition was filed by another educational institution aggrieved by
the same decision of the Examination Committee. The writ petition aforesaid was disposed of by
this Court by directing the University to provide post decisional hearing to the management and
during that period the decision impugned was kept in abeyance.

3. In compliance of the order passed by this Court, the petitioner institution was made
available the tabulation chart pertaining to the students of the institution. The result of Mathematics
Second Paper of B.Sc. 1st Year was placed under UFM (Unfair Means) category. In compliance of
the order of this Court dated 30.6.2015, the Registrar of the University issued a notice dated
14.7.2015 requiring the Principal of the institution to remain present for hearing on 22.7.2015 at
3.00 p.m. alongwith all relevant records before the Vice Chancellor. The petitioner committee
appeared before the Vice Chancellor on the assigned date and time and submitted its written
objections, in which request was made to cancel the decision of the Examination Committee
imposing fine of Rs.3 lacs, restore the status of the educational institution as an examination centre
and to declare the entire result of the examination in question. The Vice Chancellor passed an order
on 1.10.2015, whereby he reaffirmed the decision of the Examination Committee dated 3.6.2015
364 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

holding the petitioner institution guilty of the charge of mass copying. While reaffirming the
decision of the Examination Committee, the Vice Chancellor placed reliance on the report of the
flying squad and the decision of the Examination Committee.

4. The order of the Vice Chancellor dated 1.10.2015 was once again subject matter of
challenge at the instance of the petitioners by taking recourse to the writ jurisdiction4 of this Court.
Therein, the main grievance of the petitioners was that the report of the flying squad and the
Examination Committee on which reliance was placed by the Vice Chancellor had not been
supplied to the petitioners and thus there had been violation of principles of natural justice. This
Court on the basis of the statement made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University
that the University is prepared to afford a fresh hearing to the petitioners after supplying the report
of the flying squad and the Examination Committee, quashed the order dated 1.10.2015 and
directed for a fresh order being passed after supplying the above mentioned documents to the
petitioners.

5. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 27.10.20155, the University vide letter dated
7.11.2015 supplied the copy of the report of flying squad and decision of the Examination
Committee to the petitioners and called upon it to remain present for hearing on 16.11.2015
alongwith the records. The petitioners appeared before the Vice Chancellor on 16.11.2015 and
submitted their written objection, wherein a specific plea was taken that the exam concluded at
10:30 a.m. and thereafter the answer scripts were also sealed and at this stage the flying squad
reached and insisted for looking into the answer scripts which was objected to by the Centre
Superintendent on the ground that it would breach the confidentiality of the examination. The
petitioners in their objections also alleged that the flying squad asked for illegal gratification, and
threatened it of dire consequences in case its demand is not met. It was pleaded that there was no
evidence of mass copying nor any report to the said effect, thus, the allegation of mass copying is
unfounded. While the matter remained pending, the petitioner institution by letter dated 17.12.2015
made a request to the Vice Chancellor to declare the result of the students of the petitioner
institution. Ultimately, the Vice Chancellor by the impugned order dated 21.12.2015 has concluded
that mass copying had taken place while the examination of Mathematics II paper of B.Sc. Ist year
was conducted in the petitioner institution. The Vice Chancellor has accordingly reaffirmed the
imposition of various penalties by the Examination Committee. It has been held that such decision
is necessary to ensure purity of the examination and the maintenance of the educational standard.
Aggrieved thereby, the instant writ petition has been filed by the committee of management of the
institution.

6. The issues that fall for consideration are (i) whether the University was right in
concluding that mass copying had taken place in the petitioner institution?; and (ii) whether the
punishment imposed by the University in the facts and circumstances of the instant case is justified
or not ?

7. The Vice Chancellor has inferred mass copying having taken place on account of two
factors. The Vice Chancellor placing reliance on the report of the flying squad which mentions that
7 All. C/M, Lalit Krishna Women Institute of Higher Education, Inderpur, Ballia & Anr. Vs
 State Of U.P. & Ors.
365
it made a comparison of the answer scripts of the students at 10:45 a.m. had concluded that the
examination was going on even beyond the prescribed time i.e., 10:30 a.m. and this, in his opinion,
amounts to mass copying being contrary to the Rules of the University. The second factor which
weighed with the Vice Chancellor in concluding that mass copying had taken place is again the
report of the flying squad, which mentions that answers to question no.1 and 8 (a) & (b) of almost
all the students, on being compared, were found to be identical.

8. In respect of first factor, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the
examination of Mathematics Second Paper of B.Sc. 1st year held on 7.5.2015 was over at 10:30
a.m., the time prescribed by the University. The answer scripts after being collected were made into
a bundle, which had been sealed. At this stage, the flying squad arrived and insisted for inspection
of the answer scripts, which was objected to by the Examination Superintendent. This annoyed the
members of the flying squad and they insisted for inspecting the answer scripts. According to the
petitioners, they also asked for illegal gratification, failing which they threatened the institution of
dire consequences. It is submitted that even in the report of the flying squad, there is no mention
that at the time they arrived in the institution, the examination was being held. It is submitted that
in such circumstances, the Vice Chancellor was not justified in imputing the charge of mass
copying on the ground that the examination had continued beyond the prescribed time.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the University tried to support the charge of mass
copying on the ground that the examination had continued beyond the prescribed time by referring
to Clause 7 of the guidelines framed by the University, whereunder the flying squad was to make
recommendation of mass copying against the examination centre where exams were found to have
continued beyond the prescribed time. He further placed reliance on certain letters obtained from
the members of the flying squad while the matter was pending before the Vice Chancellor in
pursuance of the direction given by this Court in its judgment and order dated 27.10.2015 in Writ-C
No.59461 of 2015, in which it is stated that it found the examination continuing at 10 : 45 a.m.,
when it visited the institution. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid clarification issued by the
members of the flying squad, it is amply clear that the examination had continued beyond the
prescribed time and thus, the Vice Chancellor was justified in concluding that mass copying had
taken place.

10. The University had framed guidelines, on the basis of which the flying squad was to
ascertain as to whether mass copying had taken place or not. Clause 7 thereof specifically provides
that in case the students were found writing the answer book before or after the prescribed time, it
shall be inferred that mass copying had taken place at such centre. Thus, it cannot be gainsaid that
in case the students were found writing the answer scripts at 10:45 a.m. which is beyond 10:30 a.m.
by which the examinations were supposed to be over, the charge of mass copying would stand
established. However, the question for consideration is whether there was any material before the
Vice Chancellor on basis of which such inference could have been drawn. The relevant part of the
report of the flying squad dated 7.5.2015 mentions as under:-
366 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

अभ्युक्ति 10:45 ए०एम० पर जब उड़ाक़ा दल पह ुँच़ा तो उ० पु० के क्तमल़ान पर प्रश्न सं० 1 तथ़ा ४ (ए), बी के उत्तर लगभग
सभी छ़ात्ऱाओं के एक सम़ान प़ाये गये।

11. It is clear from the report of the flying squad that it reached the petitioner institution at
10:45 a.m. which is after the prescribed time for the examination being over. The report of the
flying squad nowhere mentions that at 10:45 a.m. when it reached the examination centre, the
students were found writing the answer book. On the other hand, the specific case of the petitioners
in their written objections submitted before the Vice Chancellor on 16.11.2015 was that the
examination was over at 10:30 a.m. and even the bundles had been sealed when the flying squad
arrived and insisted for looking into the answer scripts. It seems that in order to meet the specific
stand taken by the petitioner institution in this regard in its written objection dated 16.11.2015, the
Registrar by letter dated 12.12.2015 addressed to Dr. Santosh Kumar Gupta and Dr. Virendra
Pratap Singh, the members of the flying squad, obtained their response. The members of the flying
squad in their undated letter submitted to the Registrar stated that "the flying squad as per its duty
schedule, reached the said college on 7.5.2015 at 10:45 a.m. and was surprised to find that the
examination was continuing flouting the examination and University Rules". As noted above, in the
report submitted by the flying squad on the date of inspection, there is no indication that the
examination was continuing at the time they arrived at the examination centre. On the contrary, as
noted above, the specific case of the petitioners was that since the examination was over at 10:30
a.m. and thus, the flying squad was not justified in comparing the answer scripts after getting the
bundle unsealed and in submitting the report in question. Concededly, the aforesaid letters were
obtained from the members of the flying squad after the hearing before the Vice Chancellor
concluded on 16.11.2015. In case the University had obtained such additional material after
conclusion of the hearing, the petitioners should have been confronted with such material, before
placing reliance upon the same. However, the same having not been done, in the opinion of the
Court, the conclusion drawn by the Vice Chancellor placing reliance on the aforesaid letters cannot
be sustained.

12. Irrespective of what has been held above, there is yet another aspect of the matter
which needs to be taken note of. The report of the flying squad dated 7.5.2015 was the sole basis
for holding the petitioner institution guilty of mass copying. The report of the flying squad, as
noted above, only mentions that on inspection, it found certain answers had been given in identical
fashion by most of the students. At that time there was no allegation that the charge of mass
copying is being imputed on the petitioners on the ground that examination had continued beyond
the prescribed time. Even after the matter was remitted back to the Vice Chancellor by this Court
vide its order dated 30.6.2015 and following which the Vice Chancellor passed fresh order dated
1.10.2015, there was not even a suggestion that the examination had infact continued beyond 10:30
a.m. In case the answer scripts were being written beyond the prescribed time and the directions to
the flying squad issued by the University specifically provides that in case the examination had
continued beyond the prescribed time, the same itself is sufficient to infer mass copying, there does
not appear any reason why such fact was not mentioned in the report submitted by the flying squad
on that date itself.
7 All. C/M, Lalit Krishna Women Institute of Higher Education, Inderpur, Ballia & Anr. Vs
 State Of U.P. & Ors.
367
13. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is unable to uphold the charge of mass
copying on the ground that the examination had continued beyond the prescribed time.

14. The other consideration on which charge of mass copying is found to be established is,
as noted above, the report of the flying squad mentioning that on comparison of the answer scripts
of the students, the answers to question no.1 and 8 (a) & (b) had been found to be given in an
identical manner by most of the students. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that
firstly, the examination being over at 10:30 a.m., the flying squad was not empowered to get the
answer scripts unsealed and carry out comparison of the answer scripts. Further, the flying squad
was not competent to carry out comparison of answers and especially when none of its members
were from the faculty of Mathematics. It is submitted that at best the flying squad could have made
a recommendation for an enquiry being made by an expert body. It is urged that it is only the
examiner evaluating the answer scripts who could infer mass copying on the ground that answers
have been given in identical manner by most of the students and such power is not vested in the
flying squad. It is submitted that there is no such report of the Examination Controller in respect of
the petitioner institution and thus, the charge of mass copying is wholly unfounded. It is pointed out
that the Examination Controller, on the basis of the report of the examiner, had made
recommendation of mass copying only in respect of three institutions, which does not include the
petitioner institution. In respect of these institutions, the Examination Committee by other part of
its resolution of the same date had resolved to levy a fine of Rs.3 lacs and other punishments. It is
thus sought to be submitted that had there been similarity in the answers given by the students, the
Examination Controller/Examiner would have submitted report of mass copying against the
petitioner institution but there being no such report, it cannot be concluded that any mass copying
had taken place.

15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent University submitted that
although the members of the flying squad were not expert in the field of maths but being seasoned
academicians, they were competent enough to ascertain whether or not the answers had been given
in identical manner by most of the students. It is submitted that the Examination Committee, which
is an expert body, had duly considered the report of the flying squad and had thereafter taken the
impugned decision. It is urged that under the guidelines framed by the University, the
recommendation made by the flying squad in respect of mass copying is final and conclusive and
was thus rightly acted upon by the Examination Committee. The said fact has been duly noted by
the Vice Chancellor in the impugned order and no exception can be taken to the same.

16. The guidelines framed by the University on the basis of which the flying squad is to
make recommendation for taking action in case of mass copying has been brought on record as
Annexure-26 to the writ petition. Clause 6 (a) to (e) contains the guidelines for determining
whether mass copying had taken place or not, which are as under:-

(a) उड़ाक़ा दल के सदस्य परीक्ष़ा कक्ष में यक्तद स़ामूक्तहक रूप से नकल कऱाये ज़ाने अथ़ाात ब्लैक बोर्ा से क्तलखव़ाने अथव़ा पुस्तक
से बोल कर क्तलख़ाने की क्तस्थक्तत से अवगत हैं तो स़ामूक्तहक नकल की ज़ाुँच की संस्तुक्तत करेंगें।
368 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(b) एक परीक्ष़ा कक्ष में अक्तिक़ाश परीक्ष़ाथी नकल स़ामग्री से नकल करते अथव़ा अपने प़ास नकल स़ामग्री (मुक्तदत अथव़ा
हस्तक्ततक्तखत अथव़ा इण्टरनेट अथव़ा इलेक्ट्ऱाक्तनक गैजेट से उपलब्ि) रखे ह ए अथव़ा नकल करते पकडे ज़ाएुँ तो ऐसी क्तस्थक्तत में भी समूह में नकल करने /
स़ामूक्तहक नकल की संस्तुक्तत की ज़ाएगी।

(c) समूह में नकल क़ा त़ात्पया होग़ा क्तक परीक्ष़ाथी नकल से सम्बक्तधित उपयुाि वक्तणात स़ामग्री स्खे ह ए अथव़ा इस्तेम़ाल करते ह ए
अथव़ा फेंकते ह ए देख़ा गय़ा हो।

(d) स़ामूक्तहक नकल क़ा आशय क्तबधदु संसख्य़ा-06 (a एवं b) में उक्तललक्तखत क्तववरण के अनुस़ार होग़ा।

(e) उह़ाक़ा दल के पह ुँचने पर यक्तद परीक्ष़ा केधर क़ा मुख्य गेट बधद रहत़ा है और शीघ्र खोल़ा नहीं ज़ात़ा है तथ़ा अधदर ज़ाने पर
नकल स़ामग्री पर परीक्ष़ा कक्ष के ब़ाहर फंकी ह ई प़ायी ज़ाती है अथव़ा परीक्ट्स कंधर के क्तकसी कमाव़ारी द्व़ाऱा उसे जलदी-जलदी इकट्ठ़ा क्तकय़ा ज़ा रह़ा हो तो
ऐसी क्तस्थक्तत में स़ामूक्तहक नकल की संस्तुक्तत की ज़ायगी। यक्तद नंट क़ा त़ाल़ा त़ाक़ाल नहीं खोल़ा ज़ात़ा है तो उड़ाक़ा दल त़ाल़ा तोर्ने हेतु अक्तिकृत होगे।

17. A perusal of Clause (a) reveals that in case the flying squad is having knowledge of the
examinees having written their answers on basis of the material provided to them on the blackboard
or by dictation from a book, they were to make recommendation for holding an enquiry into the
charge of mass copying. On the other hand, in case the flying squad itself finds the examinees
writing the answer script from unauthorised material or by access from internet or electronic
gadgets, it had been invested with the power to make recommendation of mass copying. Clause (c)
states that cheating in group shall be inferred when the examinees were found keeping unauthorised
material with them or using the same or found throwing it. Similarly, when the main gate of the
examination centre is found closed and resistance is offered to the flying squad to enter the
examination centre, the flying squad was to infer mass copying having taken place. Apart from it,
Clause 7 (discussed in earlier part of the judgment) stipulates that in case examinees are found
taking the examination before or after the prescribed time, it shall be concluded that mass copying
had taken place. Under Clause 8, in case the answer scripts are seized from a place outside the
examination centre, it shall be inferred that mass copying had taken place.

18. A perusal of the guidelines issued to the flying squad reveals that where the flying
squad itself finds the examinees writing the answer script by employing unauthorised means as in
Clause 6 (b), (c) and in cases where resistance is offered to the entry of the flying squad (Clause
[e]) and under Clause 7 and 8 it has been invested with the power to make recommendation of mass
copying having taken place. Since under all these contingencies the offending act takes place in the
presence of the flying squad, it had been invested with the power to directly make a
recommendation of mass copying having taken place. However, under Clause (a) where the flying
squad had only derived knowledge of certain offending act having taken place, which if proved
may lead to an inference of mass copying, it was obliged to make a recommendation to hold an
enquiry in that regard.

19. The guidelines framed by the University does not empower the flying squad to compare
the answer sheet of the students or to infer mass copying having taken place on basis of such
comparison even where none of the above discussed clauses are attracted. However, in the opinion
7 All. C/M, Lalit Krishna Women Institute of Higher Education, Inderpur, Ballia & Anr. Vs
 State Of U.P. & Ors.
369
of the Court, that itself is not sufficient to hold that the report which was submitted by the flying
squad was beyond its competence and is to be discarded as a waste paper. Concededly, the
members of the flying squad were the faculty members of the University. This Court can easily
assume that they are highly qualified though in subjects other than maths. They had enough
competence to arrive atleast at a prima facie conclusion, if not conclusive, that the answers given to
certain questions by most of the candidates are identical. In the impugned order it is admitted that
the members of the flying squad are not expert in the field of maths but the Vice Chancellor has
held that they had sufficient competence to recommend action being taken based on inference that
answers to certain questions were given in identical manner by most of the students. The guidelines
framed by the University are not exhaustive nor could be, as there may be large number of modes
by which mass copying could take place which could not be visualised or comprehended at the
time of framing of the guidelines. Thus, this Court has no hesitation in holding that although the
flying squad was not invested with the power to make a comparison of the answer sheets of various
students but once it had carried out such an exercise and submitted a report, it should have been
given due credence. However, at the same time, since the members of the flying squad were not
experts in the field of maths and therefore, the proper course for the University was to get an
enquiry conducted on the basis of the report of the flying squad or to obtain a specific report in that
regard from the examiner evaluting the answer scripts.

20. During the pendency of the writ petition, this Court directed the University to produce
the original answer scripts of the students who had appeared in the examination at the petitioner
institution. On 10.3.2016, the following order was passed:-

"In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 26.2.2016, the original record has
been produced by the University before this Court which includes the answer script of the students,
who had appeared in the examination at the petitioners' institution.

According to the report of the Flying Squad, answers to question no.1 and question
no.8 (a) and (b) were found to be identical.

It is vehemently submitted before this Court that Flying Squad was not competent to
come to the conclusion that answers were given in an identical fashion by all the students. Such
conclusion can only be arrived at by the examiner examining the answer scripts.

From few of the copies, which were shown by Sri Vivek Verma, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the University, it also does not appear that answers to questions no.1 and 8
were identically given atleast by the students whose copies have been shown to the Court. Even the
marks awarded to them are different.

Sri Ravi Kant, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Vivek Verma appearing on
behalf of the University submitted that in order to ensure that no student becomes victim of the
charge of mass copying, without such charge being firmly established, the University proposes to
get the copies examined by an expert body and place its report before this Court within 10 days.
370 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

In view of such statement, the matter is adjourned for 10 days.

In case the University is getting the copies examined by an expert body, it is
desirable that the examiner should be an expert in the field and should be from some other
University, so as to rule out the element of bias.

Put up in the additional cause list on 29.3.2016.

The original record produced before this Court is returned to Sri Vivek Verma for
being transmitted to the University for taking required action."

21. The University, on the basis of the statement made by it before this Court, got the
copies of the students who had taken examination at the petitioner institution on 7.5.2015 evaluated
by Dr. Satya Dev Singh, Principal of D.A.V. College, affiliated to Banaras Hindu
Vishwavidyalaya, Banaras. Concededly, he is an expert in the field of maths. The report given by
Dr. Satya Dev Singh, after evaluating the answer scripts, submitted before this Court in a sealed
cover, was opened in Court. He evaluated 98 answer scripts and found that answers to question nos.
1 (a) and (d) and 8 (b) given by the students are substantially the same. It is found that except
student bearing roll number 69015040160 who had not attempted question 1 (a) at all and the
student having roll number 69015040214 who has answered it correctly by following the correct
procedure, the remaining students had answered question 1 (a) incorrectly. Even the mistakes
committed by them were found to be identical. It has been noted that the value of ∑ was
/ˉn+1=∫0∞e-t tn+1-1dt, whereas all students have attempted the question by mentioning the value
of ∑ as ∫0∞e-t tn-mdt. Similarly, in respect of question 1 (d) candidates with roll numbers
69015040214, 40036, 35 and 40131 had solved it correctly and candidate with roll number 40107
had not attempted the said question, all other students had solved it wrongly. Among those whose
answers are incorrect, except 9 students, all students had committed identical mistakes and also
arrived at the same wrong conclusion ∞, whereas the correct answer was 1. Similarly, in respect of
question 8 (b) except 12 students, all remaining students had followed the same incorrect procedure
and had arrived at the same wrong answer. In the said question the value of y was f (x), whereas all
students had answered by mentioning the value of y as f (t). Accordingly, the expert has inferred
that most of the students having given wrong answer to questions 1 (a), 1 (d) and 8 (b) by following
the same wrong procedure, the charge of mass copying stands established. He has further
concluded that the knowledge of the students in maths was found to be insignificant judging them
by B.Sc. standard.

22. Once the report of the expert has come on record before this Court, it cannot shut its
eye or ignore the report altogether. From the report of the expert it is evident that most of the
students have not only answered question 1 (a), 1 (d) and 8 (b) incorrectly but the answers had been
solved by employing wrong value of the constant. While solving a question of mathematics
correctly, there are fair chances that many of the students may follow the same steps and procedure.
However, it is not possible that most of the students would arrive at the same incorrect answer and
that too by following the same incorrect procedure.
7 All. C/M, Lalit Krishna Women Institute of Higher Education, Inderpur, Ballia & Anr. Vs
 State Of U.P. & Ors.
371
23. It is the prime responsibility of the University to ensure purity of the examination so as
to preserve the sanctity of the examinations. Holding of the examination without unauthorised
means being employed by the students at the examination is the prime responsibility of the
University. It is necessary for maintenance of standards of education and also to ensure that the
meritorious students take stride over less deserving. In case unauthorised means are employed by
an examinee during the examination, the final result would fail to assess the level of understanding
of students as well as the interse merit amongst the examinees. Thus, the very object for which the
examination is conducted shall stand defeated. This Court, in the face of the report of the expert
which has been placed on record, is therefore unable to accept the contention of the petitioners that
the charge of mass copying levelled against the institution is wholly bogus. However, at the same
time, this Court desist from drawing any final conclusion on the basis of such report which has
been produced before this Court for the first time without the petitioner institution being given an
opportunity to have its say on the same. For such purpose, this Court considers it desirable to remit
the matter back to the Vice Chancellor for providing an opportunity to the petitioner institution to
submit its objection, if any, against the report of the expert Dr. Satya Dev Singh dated 28.3.2016,
and to pass fresh order after considering the objection.

24. The other aspect of the matter which still requires to be considered is as to whether the
University was justified in imposing the penalties in the fact situation obtaining above. It is not
disputed before this Court that in case charge of mass copying stands established, as per the
guidelines laid down by the University to deal with such cases, the Examination Committee would
be justified in imposing penalty of Rs.3 lacs and in debarring the institution from being designated
as an examination centre for next three years. However, the other punishment imposed by the
Examination Committee namely, cancellation of the entire result of all the students requires a
consideration. It is clear from the stand taken in the writ petition that the result of all students who
had appeared in the exam at the petitioner institution in Maths II Paper of B.Sc. 1st Year was alone
placed under UFM category and not in other papers. In cases of mass copying, it is difficult to
identify the students who had indulged in mass copying from those who had not employed such
means. It is for the said reason that the University has provided for cancellation of result of all the
students in the concerned subject. However, as a result of cancellation of the examination in the
concerned subject, even those students who may not have indulged in mass copying also suffer.
Even in the instant case, from the report of Dr. Satya Dev Singh, it transpires that atleast one
student with roll number 69015040214 had answered the questions correctly by following the
correct procedure. He has not written the answers in the manner identical to other students. Can
such a student, who seems to be a very meritorious student, having answered even those questions
correctly which almost all other students had answered incorrectly, should be made to suffer? The
answer is an emphatic 'no'.

25.