# Rajneesh Shukla v. Union of India and others

- **Citation:** (2007) 1 ILRA 111
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-10-03
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28603 of 2006
- **Bench:** Vineet Saran
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajneesh-shukla-v-union-of-india-and-others-40732
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226Education-Cancelation of L.L.B. I year-Ist
semester examination-without disclosing
any evidence or material-used by the
petitioner-valuable years of petitioner's
lost without of his fault-cost of Rs. Five
Thousand imposed.

Held: Para 8

In the present case, for reasons best
known to the University authorities, an
order
cancelling
the
result
of
the
examination of the petitioner has been
passed without there being any evidence
or material on record to show that the
petitioner had used the material, or
could have used the same for answering
the questions in the examination. As
such, while allowing this writ petition, in
my view, the petitioner would also be
entitled to costs as he has, for no fault of
his, lost one valuable year of his
academic career. In my assessment, a
token cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five
thousand) should be imposed on the
University
authorities,
although
the
same
may
not
be
sufficient
112 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
compensation to the petitioner for the
loss of his one year.
Case law discussed:
1994 (1) SCC-6

## Text

1 All] Rajneesh Shukla V. Union of India and others
111
after a charge sheet has been filed after
the investigation.

7. The power to pass an order for
further investigation is discretionary. This
discretion was properly exercised by
learned C.J.M. The learned C.J.M. has
exercised his discretion on reasons. I see
no illegality or incorrectness in the
impugned order warranting interference.

8. The revisionist was named in the
F.I.R .. The motive to commit the murder
was to pressurize the eye witness of a
murder case to give evidence in accused's
favour. When such witness declined, the
revisionist committed his murder. The
charge sheet submitted by the police was
ratified by the C.B., C.I.D.. Yet the
revisionist
filed
this
revision.
Unfortunately the trial remained stayed
for about two years due to the pendency
of this revision.

9. The revision is devoid of merits.
It is therefore dismissed with a cost of
Rs.5000/-
equally
payable
to
the
respondent nos. 1 and 2. The parties are
directed to put in their appearance in court
below on 22.11.2006. The trial court is
desired to expedite the trial as early as
possible.

Certify this order to the court below.

The interim order is hereby vacated.
Revision dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.10.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28603 of 2006

Rajneesh Shukla

...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Amitabh Tripathi
Sri P.K. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Dr. A.K. Nigam, Addl. S.G. of India
Sri A.B.L. Gaur
Sri Ram Gopal Tripathi

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226Education-Cancelation of L.L.B. I year-Ist
semester examination-without disclosing
any evidence or material-used by the
petitioner-valuable years of petitioner's
lost without of his fault-cost of Rs. Five
Thousand imposed.

Held: Para 8

In the present case, for reasons best
known to the University authorities, an
order
cancelling
the
result
of
the
examination of the petitioner has been
passed without there being any evidence
or material on record to show that the
petitioner had used the material, or
could have used the same for answering
the questions in the examination. As
such, while allowing this writ petition, in
my view, the petitioner would also be
entitled to costs as he has, for no fault of
his, lost one valuable year of his
academic career. In my assessment, a
token cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five
thousand) should be imposed on the
University
authorities,
although
the
same
may
not
be
sufficient
112 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
compensation to the petitioner for the
loss of his one year.
Case law discussed:
1994 (1) SCC-6

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.)

1. Brief facts of this case are that the
petitioner was a student of LL.B. First
Year. In the Environmental Law Paper of
the First Semester Examination of LL.B.
First Year, 2006 held on 23.1.2006, on
inspection, the flying squad found that the
petitioner was using unfair means and
thus on 24.1.2006 the Examination
Controller,
Allahabad
University,
Respondent no.2, issued a notice to the
petitioner requiring him to reply to the
following charge:-

"The college flying squad recovered
from the possession of the examinee the
admit card on the back page of which the
examinee has written with pencil u. f.m.
(unfair means) matter."

2.

The
petitioner
thereafter
submitted his reply on 1.3.2006, denying
the charge, and categorically stating that
he did not make use of any unfair means
in the examination. However, thereafter
on
12.4.2006
the Deputy Registrar
(Examination), Respondent no.3, held the
petitioner to be guilty of using unfair
means and cancelled his result of LL.B.
1st Year First Semester Examination,
2006. Aggrieved by the said order, this
writ petition has been filed.

3. I have heard Sri Amitabh
Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner
as well as Sri A.B.L.Gaur, learned Senior
counsel appearing with Sri Ram Gopal
Tripathi,
learned
counsel
for
the
contesting Respondents no.2 and 3.
Pleadings between the parties have been
exchanged and with the consent of the
learned counsel for the parties, this writ
petition is being disposed of at the
admission stage.

4. By order dated 19.7.2006, this
Court had directed the respondents to
produce the admit card which formed the
basis of the charge against the petitioner
of using unfair means; and also the
answer copy of the petitioner, which have
both been produced today. On perusal of
the admit card it appears that on the back
of the same only one number i.e. 482192
has been written by hand. Besides this,
two words have been scored out by pen
(not by pencil as has been charged). By
no stretch of imagination can the number
written on the back of the admit card be
said to be any sufficient material for
substantiating the allegation that the
petitioner used the same for cheating in
the examination. Even if it is presumed
that two words were written which had
been scored out by pen, the same also
cannot
form
sufficient
material
for
substantiating the charge against the
petitioner. I have also perused the
answering copy of the petitioner in which
detailed answers have been given by the
petitioner in his own hand-writing. The
answers run into several pages. It is not
understood as to how the said number or
mere two words could be used by the
petitioner in answering the questions to
which detailed reply has been given. As
such, in my view, the basis on which the
impugned order has been passed holding
that the petitioner was guilty of using
unfair means cannot be justified by any
standards.

5. Sri Gaur, learned Senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the contesting
respondents, has submitted that Courts
1 All] Rajneesh Shukla V. Union of India and others
113
should not interfere with the decisions of
the examining bodies with regard to use
of unfair means. In this regard he has
placed reliance on a decision of the Apex
Court rendered in the case of Central
Board
of
Secondary
Education
vs.
Vineeta Mahajan (1994) 1 S.C.C. 6
wherein it has been held that "the sine qua
non, for the misconduct under the Rule, is
the recovery of the incriminating material
from the possession of the candidate.
Once the candidate is found to be in
possession of papers relevant to the
examination, the requirement of the Rule
is satisfied and there is no escape from
the conclusion that the candidate has used
unfair means at the examination. The
Rule does not make any distinction
between bona fide or mala fide possession
of
the
incriminating
material.
................The very fact that she took the
papers relevant to the examination in the
paper concerned and was found to be in
possession of the same by the invigilator
in the examination hall is sufficient to
prove the charge of using unfair means by
her in the examination under the Rule."

6. In the said case before the
Supreme Court the candidate was found
in possession of sufficient material which
could have been used for answering the
questions in the examination and in such
circumstances, the Apex Court refused to
interfere with the findings arrived at by
the authorities. However, in the present
case, no material whatsoever worth the
name has been found in possession of the
petitioner which could be said to be
relevant to the examination. As already
mentioned above, the number written on
the back of the admit card, which formed
the basis of passing the impugned order,
could not in any manner help the
petitioner in answering the questions of
Environmental Law. As such, the finding
of the University authorities that the
petitioner was found in possession of
material which could be used for
answering the questions does not have
any basis. It may be pertinent here to refer
to
the
definition
of
"unauthorized
material" in Clause 1.2 (c) of Chapter
XXVIII of University Ordinances. The
said definition of unauthorized material
enumerates that it must be material related
to the subject of the examination. In the
present case, a few digits can by no
stretch of imagination be considered
related or even remotely relevant to an
Environmental Law Paper.

7. There is no other charge against
the petitioner nor has the counsel for the
respondents placed before me any other
ground for passing the impugned order.
As such the order dated 12.4.2006, by
which the result of First Semester of
LL.B. 1st Year Examination, 2006 of the
petitioner has been cancelled is totally
unjustified, and thus liable to be set aside.

8. It is true that Courts should
normally not interfere with orders passed
by examining bodies in cases of use of
unfair means. However, in cases where
the authorities act in a totally arbitrary
manner which may prick the conscience
of the Court, and pass orders charging a
candidate of using unfair means, even
when there is no material whatsoever for
substantiating such charge, this Court
would be failing in its duty if it refuses to
exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to set right the wrong committed by
the University authorities. In the present
case, for reasons best known to the
University authorities, an order cancelling
the result of the examination of the
114 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
petitioner has been passed without there
being any evidence or material on record
to show that the petitioner had used the
material, or could have used the same for
answering
the
questions
in
the
examination. As such, while allowing this
writ petition, in my view, the petitioner
would also be entitled to costs as he has,
for no fault of his, lost one valuable year
of his academic career. In my assessment,
a token cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five
thousand) should be imposed on the
University authorities, although the same
may not be sufficient compensation to the
petitioner for the loss of his one year.

9. Accordingly, this writ petition
stands allowed. The order dated 12.4.2006
passed by Deputy Registrar (Exam.) is
quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled
to cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand)
from the respondent no.2.

Petition Allowed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.09.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S. RAFAT ALAM, J.
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Special Appeal No. (221) of 2004

Achhaibar Maurya

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

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri S.C. Kushwaha
Sri D.K. Maurya

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri B.P. Singh
S.C.

U.P. Basic Education (Teachers Service
Rules, 1981-Rule 29-Benefit of academic
session-Assistant
teacher
in
primary
school-date of birth as recorded in
service book 1.7.43 petitioner shall
achieve
the
age
of
60
years
on
30.6.2003-not entitled for benefit of
academic
session-petition
rightly
dismissed.

Held: Para 9

The appellant having born on 1st July,
the day of his birth is to be counted as a
whole day and that being so, he
completed one year of age on 30th June
in the next year. Thus he attained 60
years of age on 30th June, 2003. That
being so, he is not entitled for the
benefit of extended employment up to
30th June inasmuch as rule 29 as
amended in 1987 clearly exclude such
teachers
who
attain
age
of
superannuation on 30th June.
Case law discussed:
LR (1918) 1 Ch. 263
LR (1930) 1 K.B.-741
AIR 1967 Maysore-135
AIR 1986 SC-1948

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.Rafat Alam, J.)

1. We have heard Sri D.K. Maurya,
learned counsel for the appellant and also
perused the order of Hon'ble Single
Judge.

2. The short controversy involved in
this
appeal
is
whether
the
petitioner/appellant whose date of birth is
1st July, 1943 is entitled to get Sessions
benefit available to a person who attained
the
age
of
superannuation
ongoing
Session.

3. The brief facts giving rise to this
appeal are that the petitioner/appellant
was appointed as Assistant Teacher on
21st July 1975 in a Primary School