# Siddheswar Shukla v. The Vice Chancellor, B. H. U., Varanasi and others

- **Citation:** (2001) 2 ILRA 206
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2001-12-31
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/siddheswar-shukla-v-the-vice-chancellor-b-h-u-varanasi-and-others-39855
- **Pages:** 22

## Text

_Characters 0–39,972 of 73,145. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39972 for what follows._

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
206
void, does not go too far. The ratio of
Nutan
Kumar's
case
(supra)
is
applicable only if the provisions of the
Act are found applicable to the tenanted
accommodation. In view of the concurrent
finding of fact that the provisions of the
Act are not applicable to the tenanted
accommodation,
reference
to
Nutan
Kumar's case (supra) is otiose. The suit
has been filed within ten years of the
construction
of
the
tenanted
accommodation after determining the
tenancy under section 106 of the Transfer
of Property Act. Since the relationship of
land-lord and tenant subsists between the
parties, the suit for ejectment could be
maintained in the Court of Judge Small
Causes Court and a regular suit for
ejectment was not required to be filed.

16. Both on legal and factual matrix
the petition fails. It is devoid of any
merits and substance. It is accordingly
dismissed without any order as to costs.

17. After delivery of this judgement
Sri M.A. Qadeer learned counsel for the
petitioner prayed that some time may be
allowed to the petitioner to vacate the
accommodation in respect of which the
order for ejectment has been made. Sri
Rajesh Tandon learned counsel for the
contesting respondent no. 3 states that he
has no objection if some reasonable time
is allowed to vacate the accommodation.

18. After having heard the learned
counsel for the parties I find that it would
be proper if the petitioner is permitted to
vacate the disputed accommodation in
respect of which the order of ejectment
has been passed and has been affirmed in
revision by 31st December, 2001. In case
the petitioner does not deliver vacant
possession on or before the said date, the
decree shall become executable according
to law.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 90 6$+$, -
7+( +21·%/( 90 6$+$, -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

6LGGKHVZDU 6KXNOD
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
7KH
9LFH
&KDQFHOORU
%DQDUDV
+LQGX
8QLYHUVLW\ 9DUDQDVL DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6UL .ULVKQD -L 6KXNOD
6UL .3 6KXNOD
6UL $VKLP .XPDU 5DL
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&
6KUL 9. 8SDGK\D\D
6KUL 3DQNDM 6ULYDVWDYD

&RQVWLWXWLRQ
RI
,QGLD
$UWLFOH

&DQFHOODWLRQ RI &DQGLGDWXUH 3HWLWLRQHU
EHLQJ VHFRQG \HDU % 3KDUPD VWXGHQW
DSSHDUHG IRU 307 ([DPLQDWLRQ ±
PHUH DQRQ\PXV FRPSODLQW ± LQ DEVHQFH
RI DQ\ PDWHULDO +HOG DUUHVW RI VWXGHQW
MXVW DIWHU H[DPLQDWLRQVXFK DFWLRQ QRW
ZDUUDQWHG
+HOG ± 3DUD
0HUHO\
RQ
DQRQ\PRXV
FRPSODLQW
LQ
DEVHQFH RI DQ\ PDWHULDO VXFK DFWLRQ E\
WKH XQLYHUVLW\ ZDV QRW ZDUUDQWHG $W WKH
EHVW WKH XQLYHUVLW\ FRXOG KDYH UHTXHVWHG
WKH SROLFH WR PDNH LQYHVWLJDWLRQ LQ WKH
PDWWHU EXW WKH XQLYHUVLW\ KDV GLUHFWHG
WKH SROLFH WR DUUHVW WKH VWXGHQWV DW WKH
WLPH
RI
WKH
H[DPLQDWLRQ
7KHUHIRUH
HQWLUH DFWLRQ RI WKH UHVSRQGHQWV ZDV
LOOHJDO
DQG
ZDV
EDVHG
RQ
VXVSLFLRQ
2All] Siddheswar Shukla V. The Vice Chancellor, B. H. U., Varanasi and others
207
ZLWKRXW WKHUH EHLQJ DQ\ FRJHQW PDWHULDO
DJDLQVW WKH SHWLWLRQHU
&DVH /DZ GLVFXVVHG
 6&&±

By the Court

In this petition filed by a candidate
who appeared in Pre-Medical Test (in
brief PMT) conducted by the Banaras
Hindu University, from Nagpur centre,
the
short
question
that
arises
for
consideration is whether there was any
material on record from which the
respondents could have concluded or even
raise
reasonable
inference
that
the
petitioner was guilty of breach of
discipline or any other irregularity for
which he could have been debarred from
the PMT examination and deprived of the
privileges of the university including
withholding of his result of B. Pharma?

2. The petitioner, admittedly, had
appeared in Pre-Medical Test/Pharmacy
Admission Test (in brief PMT/PAT)
conducted by Banaras Hindu University (
in brief university ) in 1999. He could not
get admission in PMT but he was
declared successful in PAT. He was
admitted in B. Pharma course and
declared successful in B. Pharma first
semester held in December, 1999 and
secured
Grade
point
7.78.
The
examination for second semester was held
in April,2000. In June the petitioner
appeared in PMT-2000. His candidature
was cancelled by the Vice-Chancellor on
23.6.2000
and
his
privileges as a
university student were suspended, the
consequences of which was that his result
of B. Pharma second semester was
withheld. This order was communicated
by Registrar on 24.6.2000. His result was
not declared in July 2000. The petitioner,
therefore, filed this petition for quashing
of order dated 24.6.2000. The petitioner,
therefore, filed this petition for quashing
of order dated 24.6.2000 and for issuing
direction to the respondent to declare his
result of second semester.

3. The background in which all this
happened may now be narrated in brief.
On 6.5.2000 an anonymous complaint
was received by the Controller of
Examination that the petitioner had
submitted
26
application
forms
for
admission to MBBS courses on 15.3.2000
mentioning therein Nagpur centre for all
candidates even though the candidates
were of Haridwar, Meerut, Delhi and
Muzaffarnagar. Allegation was made that
out of 26 candidates only six were
genuine and names and addresses of
others were fake. It was alleged that a
racket was operating and parents of six
candidates were spending Rs. 6 to 10 lacs
for getting admission in MBBS course.
The said amount had been distributed
amongst the rest including the petitioner.
The complaint mentioned that except six
candidates the applications of remaining
were defective, namely, they had given
names of different persons and they were
aged 25 to 35 years. It was alleged that
each detail in the applications was wrong.
It was mentioned that entire information
was available with the petitioner. The
complaint was examined by the PMT incharge examination who after scrutinising
the
application
forms
and
making
preliminary inquiry sent an official letter
to
Senior
Superintendent
of
Police,
Varanasi expressing his apprehension that
some racket was operating, therefore, an
inquiry be made as some mark sheets
appeared to be fake and the candidates
may not be genuine, therefore, they may
be
apprehended
at
the
time
of
examination on 4.6.2000 at Nagpur centre
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
208
itself. On this letter a police case was
registered on 29.5.2000 and the petitioner
along with 19 others was arrested on
4.6.2000 at Nagpur after the examination
was over. They were produced before the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi on
6.6.2000. Their bail application were
rejected, but the District Judge released
them on bail.

4. According to the counter affidavit
filed by the respondents three candidates
who were arrested were students of BHU.
It is stated that Amrendra Kumar and
Chandan Kumar are residents of Bihar
whereas
petitioner
is
resident
of
Ambedkarnagar. Chandan Kumar who
was a student of B.Pharma was caught
appearing in the examination in name of
one Mukesh Choudary. It is also stated
that the investigation made by the police
demonstrates that 20 candidates arrested
at Nagpur were impersonating for others
and most of the candidates had submitted
forged and fake mark sheets. The counter
affidavit mentions that documents of eight
candidates including that of the petitioner
was of doubtful integrity. The respondents
have alleged that petitioner, Amrendra
Kumar and Chandan Kumar were B.
Pharma students but they opted for
Nagpur Centre and in all the forms
Nagpur had been entered in same ink and
handwriting. It is urged that from
investigation and information revealed
after arrest indicates that a racket was
operating. The modus operandi was to get
candidate impersonated by person who
had already appeared earlier in PMT
examination and other candidates were
implanted at the centre to help the
candidate in solving the papers. It is
alleged that even though they were not
aware of exact amount involved but from
the unconfirmed information it has come
to the knowledge of the university that the
amount was more than one crore.

5. On 24.6.2000 the vice-chancellor
on inquiry made by in-charge of the
examination issued show cause to the
petitioner mentioning therein that it was
reported to him that 26 application forms
for PMT-2000 was submitted by one
person having number of irregularities to
succeed in using unfair means. It was
further mentioned that the university PMT
Cell on screening found that relevant
documents attached with the forms were
fake. The notice stated that the vicechancellor had further been informed that
the petitioner and Amrendra Kumar were
residing in the same room of Rajputana
hostel and they managed to purchase form
numbers 21930 and 21931 with clear
intention of using unfair means. Further,
the name of centre was written in one ink
and
same
handwriting,
which
was
contrary to instructions in Form-A for
PMT.
The
notice
mentioned
that
candidates from Bihar and U.P. opted for
Nagpur
centre
instead
of
nearer
examination centres at Varanasi and
Delhi, therefore, ulterior motive was
clear, to fraudulently and illegally use
unfair means. The notice mentioned that
from the facts it was clear that they were
ineligible to appear in BHU PMT-2000
held on 4.6.2000. It was further stated that
the petitioner being a student of B.
Pharma he acted in an unbecoming
manner for a student of the university,
therefore, examination of petitioner for
PMT-2000 was cancelled and he being a
student of B. Pharma the privileges
including hostel was suspended for which
he may show cause. The petitioner was
required to submit reply by 7.7.2000. The
notice was replied by the petitioner on
7.7.2000 denying the allegations in the
2All] Siddheswar Shukla V. The Vice Chancellor, B. H. U., Varanasi and others
209
show cause notice as incorrect and
imaginary. He alleged that centre in his
application were filled in his own
handwriting and was signed by him.
There was no irregularity or illegality in
it. He mentioned that his roll number and
roll number of Amrendra Kumar was
41510 and 41317 and the seats were in
different rooms and floor, therefore, there
was no relation between the two. The
other allegations were also denied.

6. The vice-chancellor on receipt of
reply appointed an Enquiry Committee of
three university teachers, which submitted
its report on 14.11.2000. The committee
held that the claim of the petitioner that he
opted for Nagpur centre as it was
convenient was incorrect as in earlier year
he had appeared from New Delhi. The
centre Nagpur was written in the forms of
petitioner, Amrendra Kumar and Chandan
Kumar prima facie in one writing.
Therefore, the committee inferred that the
form submitted by the petitioner was not
in order and application form was fake.
The committee further found that change
in column no. 5 was made out as the form
number
of
Amrendra
Kumar
and
petitioner were 21930 and 21931 which
was submitted on the last date i.e.
15.3.2000.

7. The vice-chancellor Sri Y.C.
Simhadri also filed a supplementary
counter affidavit. In paragraph 8 it is
stated that in all 32 applications including
of petitioner was deposited by one person
probably the petitioner. But it was
admitted that there was no bar in one
candidate depositing more than one
application form. In paragraph 12 it is
stated that even though roll numbers are
allotted after the last date but there is a
greater chance that forms submitted
together
may
get
consecutive
roll
numbers and the candidates may get a
chance to sit in the same room which may
give an opportunity to consult each other
specially in toilets. In paragraph 16 it is
stated that the vice-chancellor took the
action under Ordinance relating to Powers
to maintain Discipline and Condemnation
of Acts of Indiscipline as also read with
Executive Council Resolution No. 264
dated 9th June 1979. But the order
cancelling the examination of petitioner
and suspending him was an interim
measure. He stated that the committee
was appointed to assist him which
submitted its report but no final order had
been passed as in the meantime the
petitioner approached the High Court.

8. Sri Krishna Ji Shukla the learned
counsel for the petitioner has urged that
except the fact that name of petitioner was
mentioned in anonymous complaint there
is no other material with the university to
show that the petitioner used unfair means
at the examination or was involved in any
racket or indulged in impersonation. He
urged that petitioner was successful in
PMT/PAT 1999 and was admitted in B.
Pharma
Ist
semester
course.
The
university permits those candidates who
have been successful in PAT to appear
again in PMT and in case they are
successful such candidates are admitted in
MBBS course of the university. Learned
counsel further urged that the order
passed by the respondent cancelling
PMT-2000 result of the petitioner and
depriving him of all privileges of the
university was passed without affording
him any opportunity of hearing and he
was illegally deprived of declaration of
his result of B. Pharma IInd semester
result and registration in B. Pharma III
semester. He urged that the action of the
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
210
respondent against the petitioner was
illegal and arbitrary and was based on no
material. Therefore, the petitioner was
entitled for declaration of his result of B.
Pharma IInd semester and registration in
B. Pharma IIIrd semester course and
restoration of all privileges of the
university.

9. On the other hand Sri V.K.
Upadhyaya has produced 32 original
application forms before the court and
made statement on the basis of record that
out of 32 candidates only 20 candidates
appeared in PMT-2000 from Nagpur
centre and 12 candidates were absent. He
urged
that
in
PMT/PAT-1999
the
petitioner appeared from Delhi centre and
in PMT-2000 examination he appeared
from Nagpur centre which was far away
from the residence of the petitioner.
Therefore, the authorities correctly raised
the
presumption
that
the
petitioner
appeared from Nagpur centre in order to
use unfair means at the examination. He
urged that in anonymous complaint
received by the university on 6.5.2000 the
name of petitioner was mentioned and the
petitioner was arrested at Nagpur on
4.6.2000, therefore, the university rightly
cancelled
PMT-2000
result
of
the
petitioner and suspended all the privileges
of the university including the hostel
because First Information Report was
lodged against the petitioner. Learned
counsel urged that the enquiry committee
appointed by the vice-chancellor in its
report
dated
14.11.2000
found
the
petitioner guilty of the charges levelled
against him and the handwriting on the
petitioner's
application
form
where
Nagpur centre was written was mentioned
in the same handwriting as on other
application forms which shows that the
petitioner was involved in the racket as
alleged in the anonymous complaint.

10. From the facts of this case it is
clear that the petitioner's name was
mentioned in the anonymous complaint
received by the university on 6.5.2000.
The
in-charge
PMT/PAT-2000,
on
instructions of the vice-chancellor, lodged
a
complaint
with
the
Senior
Superintendent of Police on 29.5.2000
and the First Information Report was
registered at Varanasi on 2.6.2000. The
proctors of the university along with
police party went to Nagpur and with the
help of Commissioner of Police, Nagpur
arrested 20 candidate who appeared in the
examination at Nagpur centre, brought
them to Varanasi and thereafter the vicechancellor passed an order on 23.6.2000
which
was
communicated
by
the
Registrar to the petitioner on 24.6.2000
cancelling his examination and result of
PMT-2000 and deprived him of all the
privileges of the university including the
hostel facilities. Show cause notice was
issued to the petitioner to which he
submitted reply on 7.7.2000 in which the
petitioner categorically stated that his roll
number was 41510 and roll number of
Amrendra
Kumar
was
41317.
The
petitioner on 4.6.2000 appeared in the
examination from room no. 24, which was
on the first floor whereas Amrendra
Kumar was in room no. 7 on the ground
floor and both were allotted Room No.
122 at Rajputana Hostel by the university
on which the petitioner had no control.
The university made inquiries from CBSE
and U.P. Board, A report had been
submitted by CBSE that mark sheets and
certificates submitted by 16 candidates
were fake. This report was not with regard
to the petitioner. No report has been
submitted by U.P. Board against the
2All] Siddheswar Shukla V. The Vice Chancellor, B. H. U., Varanasi and others
211
petitioner to the university. The petitioner
was
not
found
impersonating
any
candidate by the police party at Nagpur
on
4.6.2000.
The
vice-chancellor
appointed an enquiry committee, which
has submitted its report on 14.11.2000.
The enquiry committee has considered the
explanation of the petitioner and has
found that the candidates who have
appeared from Nagpur centre were from
Haridwar and nearby places. It recorded
that as per 8.2.1 of PMT/PAT-2000
information booklet the petitioner has
mentioned in his form about the fact that
he is pursuing his study in university and
he was a bonafide student of the
university. This claim was false and not
justified. In the application form of
petitioner, Amrendra Kumar and Chandan
Kumar, 'Nagpur' has been mentioned as
centre with the same ink and handwriting.
The petitioner was arrested on 4.6.2000 in
Nagpur
and
the
matter
is
under
investigation of the police. The enquiry
committee also scrutinised the application
of the petitioner for PMT/PAT-1999
through which the petitioner was admitted
to B. Pharma Ist semester course in the
Institute of Technology during 19992000. On the aforesaid facts the enquiry
committee was of the opinion that the
petitioner had opted for Nagpur centre for
his convenience was incorrect as he
appeared earlier in 1999 examination
from New Delhi centre and Nagpur was
not given as second choice. It further
found that in column no. 15 of form of
PMT-2000 regarding the name of centre
the
committee
had
scrutinised
the
handwriting with respect to the name of
the centre and was of the opinion that the
word 'Nagpur'written in the relevant
column of application form of petitioner,
Amrendra Kumar and Chandan Kumar
prima
facie
appear to be in one
handwriting. It was of opinion that the
form of petitioner was not in order. The
form of Amrendra Kumar and petitioner
was having number 21930 and 21931,
therefore, the charge against the petitioner
was correct and the application forms
were submitted on the last date i.e. on
15.3.2000. From this report of the enquiry
committee dated 14.11.2000 it is clear
that the enquiry committee did not find
the allegation of petitioner that he had
appeared at Nagpur from room no. 24 at
the first floor and Amrendra Kumar
appeared in room no. 7 at the ground floor
to be incorrect. The enquiry committee
presumed
that
since
petitioner
had
appeared from Delhi in 1999 examination
but he opted for Nagpur centre in PMT2000 therefore, he appeared in PMT
examination with ulterior motive.

11. From the facts which have been
averred in the writ petition, counter
affidavit
and
supplementary
counter
affidavit filed by the vice-chancellor, it is
clear that apart from the anonymous
complaint there is no material to show
that the petitioner was guilty of any act of
indiscipline. Admittedly the university
conducts examination from four centres.
No rule or regulation was placed to show
that the choice of centres for the
examinees was to be made depending on
distance. A candidate could appear from
any of the four centres Varanasi, Delhi,
Calcutta and Nagpur. There is no bar in
the information brochure that a candidate
has to appear or to give his option for
centre which was nearby his home. It is
open to a candidate to appear in the
examination from any of the centres.
Merely because the petitioner had opted
to appear from Nagpur centre where his
maternal grandfather resided cannot lead
to an inference that the petitioner opted
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
212
Nagpur centre for using unfair means.
The respondents did not produce or even
allege that there was any report from
Nagpur that petitioner was guilty of using
unfair means. Even assuming that as
many as 20 candidates residing in Uttar
Pradesh and Bihar opted for Nagpur that
alone could not furnish material for
drawing any inference that it was done
with
ulterior
motive.
Similarly,
the
submission of number of forms deposited
by
one
candidate,
by
itself,
was
insufficient to warrant any conclusion of
unfair means. Even the vice-chancellor
candidly stated in the supplementary
counter affidavit that there was no such
bar for one candidate to deposit more that
one application.

12.

Learned counsel for the
respondent has placed original forms of
all 32 candidates before this court From
the perusal of the forms of 32 candidates
it is clear that Nagpur centre has not been
written
in
all
the
forms
in
one
handwriting. I have also compared the
forms of petitioner with Amrendra Kumar
and other candidates. The petitioner has
filled his entire form as well as column
no. 15 opting for Nagpur centre in his
own handwriting. The word Nagpur in
column no. 15 written by the petitioner is
not in the same handwriting and ink as is
written in the application forms of
Amrendra Kumar and others. There is
neither any allegation nor material that the
form of the petitioner or mark sheet or
certificates filed by him was fake. The
enquiry committee appointed by the vicechancellor in its report has mentioned that
Nagpur centre was written in the form of
the petitioner, Amrendra Kumar and
Chandan Kumar is one ink and same
handwriting. This observation is factually
incorrect. Chandan Kumar was not a
candidate for PMT/PAT-2000. His name
does not find place in the list of 32 forms
produced before me. The conclusion of
the enquiry committee is based on
erroneous assumption of facts.

13. The other objection taken by the
enquiry committee was that the petitioner
in his application form in column no. 12
has stated that he is applying under the
university student category. This column
was required to be filled by the candidates
who were appearing for MBBS course
only. The petitioner has filled column no.
12 and has stated that he is a student of B.
Pharma session 1999-2000. The enquiry
committee has drawn a presumption that
the petitioner has violated 8.2.1. of
PMT/PAT-2000 information booklet and
application form and his claim of being a
bona fide university student is false and
not justified. The view taken by the
enquiry committee is erroneous as the
application form itself in column no. 12
provided that the candidates must give an
information
whether
he
is
applying
against BHU student category for MBBS
course only. Since the petitioner was a
bonafide university student and was
studying in B. Pharma course and was
appearing for MBBS course only in PMT2000, he rightly filled column no. 12 of
the application form. Had the petitioner
ignored to fill column no. 12 of the
application form then the presumption
would have been against the petitioner
that he tried to conceal that he was a bona
fide student of the university. Therefore,
the view taken by the enquiry committee
that his claim was fake and not justified is
incorrect. The vice-chancellor in his
supplementary counter affidavit has stated
that in all probabilities the petitioner
might have deposited all the application
forms himself but apart from this
2All] Siddheswar Shukla V. The Vice Chancellor, B. H. U., Varanasi and others
213
presumption there is no material or
evidence with the university to show that
in fact the petitioner had deposited all the
forms on 15.3.2000. From the above facts
it is clear that the entire proceedings were
started on the basis of an anonymous
complaint
made
on
6.5.2000,
First
Information Report was lodged on the
direction of the vice-chancellor and the
petitioner was arrested on 4.6.2000
though there was no material available
with the university, except the anonymous
complaint, that the petitioner is involved
in any manner in use of unfair means at
PMT-2000 at Nagpur centre. In absence
of any material the university should not
have
proceeded
to act against the
petitioner to jeopardise his entire career.
Merely on anonymous complaint in
absence of any material, such action by
the university was not warranted. At the
best the university could have requested
the police to make investigation in the
matter but the university has directed the
police to arrest the students at the time of
the examination. Therefore, entire action
of the respondent was illegal and was
based on suspicion without there being
any cogent material against the petitioner.

14. In the supplementary counter
affidavit filed by the vice-chancellor the
action has been justified under chapter
Condemnation of Acts of Indiscipline. It
mentions
various
categories
of
indiscipline. Out of these the vicechancellor had stated in paragraph 15 that
the petitioner had committed an act
unbecoming of a student of university and
also because he was involved in an
offence involving moral turpitude. During
arguments the learned counsel for the
respondent relied on clause (c) and (e)
that is an act punishable under any law for
the time being in force and an act in
breach of any undertaking. If any of these
allegations are correct the action of the
vice-chancellor may not be open to
challenge. It is well settled by the apex
court in Chairman, J & K State Board
of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik
and others (2000) 3 SCC 59 that the
courts should not lightly interfere with
campus
matters
or
conduct
of
examination, as the primary jurisdiction in
such matters rests with the university
authorities. But the court has been
categorical
in
holding
that
general
principles would not apply and the court
can interfere where there is breach of rule
or regulation or where it would cause
injustice. The latter observation made by
the apex court applies squarely. The noninterference by this court would not only
be unjust and inequitable but it would ruin
the career of a young man for no fault
except that he decided to appear in PMT2000 from Nagpur centre. The facts,
which could not be disputed, were that the
petitioner a resident of Uttar Pradesh,
chose Nagpur as the centre for his PMT
test. He deposited more that one form at
the university counter. In the form filled
by petitioner and Amrendra Kumar,
Nagpur centre is not written by same ink
and handwriting. The form numbers of
petitioner and Amrendra Kumar were
21931 and 21930 respectively, but their
seats were in different rooms and floor.
Mark sheets of some of the candidates
whose name was mentioned in the
complaint were fake. The petitioner and
Amrendra Kumar were inmates of room
no. 122 Rajputana hostel. They were
arrested on 4.6.2000. None of these
circumstances could give rise to inference
that petitioner was guilty of using unfair
means or he committed any indiscipline
as mentioned in the Ordinance. The vicechancellor has himself admitted that one
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
214
candidate could deposit more than one
form, therefore, the deposit of more than
one form by petitioner, even if accepted to
be
correct,
could
not
amount
to
indiscipline. Nor writing of Nagpur centre
in same ink or same handwriting could
result in indiscipline. A form under the
rules has to be filled by the candidate
himself but if one of the entries, namely,
centre is written by one person in more
than one form it could not be described as
indiscipline or violation of the rule. Even
assuming it was improper the petitioner
could not be penalised or held guilty of
indiscipline unless the committee would
have found that the writing on the
petitioner's form was not his or at least he
had written Nagpur in all the three forms.
It was necessary because the petitioner in
his reply had categorically stated that he
filled his own form alone. The fact that
the ink and handwriting in three forms
were same is not borne out from record.
Similarly, the vice-chancellor or the
enquiry committee could not conclude or
infer indiscipline because the petitioner
instead of opting for Delhi from where he
competed in 1999 opted from Nagpur in
2000. In absence of any restriction it was
open to petitioner to appear from any
centre. The mere fact that it would have
been more convenient for petitioner to
appear from Varanasi or Delhi could not
lead
to
an
inference
that
it
was
indiscipline or motivated with ulterior
purpose. The committee or the vicechancellor could not draw any inference
of unfair means because petitioner and
Amrendra Kumar purchased form one
after the other, when it is not denied that
both appeared in PMT-2000 and were in
different rooms and floors. Therefore,
none of the reasons mentioned in the
show cause notice could lead to an
inference that the petitioner was guilty of
indiscipline.

15. The enquiry report submitted on
14.11.2000 is founded on incorrect facts.
In paragraph 2 of the report it is
mentioned that the petitioner wrongly
mentioned in the form that he was entitled
as BHU student to claim undue benefit.
This aspect has been discussed earlier.
The petitioner being a student of B.
Pharma was a bona fide student of BHU.
In paragraph 3 of the report it is
mentioned that Nagpur centre in form of
petitioner, Amrendra Kumar and Chandan
Kumar was written in same ink and
handwriting. This again was factually
incorrect. It has been stated earlier that a
comparison of the form of petitioner and
Amrendra Kumar shows that Nagpur
centre in these forms is not written in
same ink and handwriting. The enquiry
committee further was totally incorrect in
mentioning
that Nagpur centre was
written in form of Chandan Kumar. The
list of all 32 candidates was filed in
Annexure-2 to the counter affidavit and
Photostat copies of application forms of
32 candidates who filled their forms from
Nagpur
centre
have
been
filed
as
Annexure-SCA-6 to the supplementary
counter affidavit. All the original 32
forms were produced before me. Neither
in the list nor the application forms name
of Chandan Kumar finds place. Chandan
Kumar
was
not
a
candidate
for
PMT/PAT-2000.
He
was
caught
impersonating for Mukesh Choudary. The
enquiry committee, therefore, based its
report more on surmises and rumours than
on perusal of records. It cannot be relied.
The conclusion of the committee that the
ink and handwriting on the forms of
petitioner, Amrendra Kumar and Chandan
2All] Siddheswar Shukla V. The Vice Chancellor, B. H. U., Varanasi and others
215
Kumar were by same person is erroneous
at the face of it.

16. The allegation that there was a
racket operating could not be gone into
these
proceedings.
The
respondents
themselves
have admitted that even
though there was allegation that huge
amount was being spent by some parents
to procure admission in MBBS but they
could not get any material in support of it.
The circumstances that some of the mark
sheets were fake or Chandan Kumar was
found impersonating do give rise to
suspicion that the state of affairs were not
proper. But that alone could not result in
indicting every candidate who was of
Uttar Pradesh and chose to appear from
Nagpur. The petitioner was student of B.
Pharma. There is no material to link him
with the racket, if any, except the
unsubstantiated
allegation
in
the
anonymous complaint. Mere suspicion
howsoever strong cannot result in proving
the allegations.

17. The order of the vice-chancellor
cancelling the petitioner's examination
PMT-2000 and suspending him from the
privileges of the university including
withholding of his result of B. Pharma is
further contrary to the Ordinance framed
by the university and principles of natural
justice and fair play. From the extract of
Ordinance filed in supplementary counter
affidavit of the vice-chancellor it is clear
that
it
enumerates
indiscipline
and
empowers the authorities to take action
against the student committing breach of
it. But it is implicit that before taking
action the candidate or the student has to
be given an opportunity. In this case the
vice-chancellor
cancelled
PMT-2000
examination of petitioner and suspended
him first and issued show cause notice
thereafter. This was illegal. The averment
that it was by way of interim measure is
of no consequence as from June 2000 it is
now February 2001 and the vicechancellor has not passed any final order,
even though court had not granted any
interim order. The result is that the
petitioner is deprived of studying in B.
Pharma even. His result for second
semester has been withheld. He is not
allowed to study for third semester. The
course for PMT-2000 must have started.
In other words by the time the final order
is passed the petitioner's entire career
would stand ruined. Cancellation and
suspension should have taken place in
consequence of final order and not before
that.

18. The suspension is justified by
the respondent under Executive Council
Resolution No. 264 dated 9th June 1979
filed
along
with
the
supplementary
counter affidavit. An act of indiscipline
has been defined in chapter II-A of the
Ordinance. It provides that no student of
the university shall indulge in an act of
indiscipline. For instance, misconduct, an
act punishable under any law in force, an
act
in
breach
of
undertaking
etc.
Paragraph 2 of the same chapter provides
for disciplinary action for breach of
discipline, such as, rustication, expulsion,
suspension etc. But the action could be
taken against the student on proof of any
indiscipline and not on mere allegation or
complaint. The vice-chancellor exercised
the power, on suspicion, against the
petitioner. The show cause notice in the
circumstances was formality only. If some
mark sheets were found to be fake or if
someone was found impersonating for
someone else it could not result in
cancellation of the candidature of a
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
216
candidate against whom there was no
material.

19. The vice-chancellor has justified
the action under Resolution No. 264 dated
9th
June
1979
for
suspending
the
petitioner
from
privileges
of
the
university. Clause-I of the resolution
empowers the university to suspend
privileges of the student if he " ..... is
accused of or involved in a offence
involving moral turpitude or heinous
crime (including those involving violence
or intimidation) and is wanted by the
police or has been released on bail in
connection with any such offence, or
detained under any provision or against
whom a Police investigation or criminal
prosecution for any such offence is
pending, of enquiry under U.P. Goonda
Act is initiated .......". Therefore, the
power could be exercised either for
involvement in moral turpitude or wanted
in heinous offence. The clause of heinous
offence is not attracted. As regards moral
turpitude the power of suspension could
be invoked by the vice-chancellor under
this clause either for involvement of
petitioner in an offence of moral turpitude
or heinous offence. On the facts narrated
above there was no material from which
either could be inferred against the
petitioner. He was no doubt enlarged on
bail. But for the applicability of this
clause it was necessary that the petitioner
should have been accused of any heinous
offence in which bail should have been
granted. The petitioner was arrested on
mere suspicion, therefore, this clause was
not attracted and he could not have been
suspended from the privileges of the
university under Resolution No. 264.

20. The vice-chancellor prejudged
the
issue
and
cancelled
PMT-2000
examination and result of the petitioner
and deprived him of all the privileges of
the university. It is admitted by the vicechancellor that he has not cancelled
admission of the petitioner. Therefore, the
university acted illegally in depriving the
petitioner of declaration of his result of B.
Pharma
IInd
semester
and
in
not
permitting the petitioner's registration in
B. Pharma III semester course. Since
there was nothing against the petitioner
and no material was found against him,
the vice-chancellor was also not justified
in cancelling his candidature of PMT2000, the entire action of the university
was illegal and arbitrary and the order
passed by the vice-chancellor dated
23.6.2000 communicated by the Registrar
on 24.6.2000 cannot be upheld.

21. In the result, this writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The order passed
by
Vice-Chancellor/respondent
no.
1
dated 23.6.2000 as communicated to the
petitioner by the Registrar/respondent
no.2, on 24.6.2000 Annexure-6 to the writ
petition, is quashed. The respondents are
directed to declare the result of petitioner
of B. Pharma IInd semester and in case he
is declared successful or is entitled for
back paper he shall be granted registration
in B. Pharma IIIrd semester course as per
rules of the university. All the privileges
of the university including hostel of the
petitioner
shall
stand
restored.
The
respondents are further directed to declare
the petitioner's result of PMT-2000 and in
case he is declared successful in the said
examination and opts for M.B.B.S. course
then he shall be admitted in MBBS
course, which shall be subject to decision
of the criminal case pending against the
petitioner.
2All] Asma Parveen V. Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh and others
217
The respondents shall comply with
the aforesaid directions within two weeks
from the date a certified copy of this order
is produced before respondent no. 2.

The parties shall bear their own cost.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 68'+,5 1$5$,1 -
7+( +21·%/( 68'+,5 1$5$,1 -
7+( +21·%/( .5,6+1$ .80$5 -
7+( +21·%/( .5,6+1$ .80$5 -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

$VPD 3DUYHHQ
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
$OLJDUK 0XVOLP 8QLYHUVLW\ $OLJDUK DQG
RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6UL 6KDNHHO $KPDG
6UL 5. $ZDVWKL
6UL 5DYL .LUDQ -DLQ
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&
6UL 'LOHHS *XSWD

&RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD $UWLFOH
'LVPLVVDO 2UGHU 3HWLWLRQ /HFWXUHU LQ
3V\VKRORJ\ GLVPLVVHG RQ WKH JURXQG VKH
DVVLVWHG WR PLVXVHG KHU SRVLWLRQ DQG
PDGH VH[XDO DGYDQFH WRZDUGV WKH JLUO E\
ORRNLQJ WKH GRRU IURP RXWVLGH 'XULQJ
HQTXLU\ WKH VDLG JLUO QRW SURGXFHG KHOG
1R
YLRODWLRQ
RI
SULQFLSOH
RI
1DWXUDO
-XVWLFH
+HOG 3DUD
,Q WKH SUHVHQW FDVH FRQVLGHULQJ WKH
HQWLUH
IDFWV
DQG
FLUFXPVWDQFHV
WKH
YHUVLRQ RI WKH FRPSODLQDQW JLUO KDV EHHQ
DFFHSWHG
DQG
RQ
WKH
HQWLUH PDWHULDO
SODFHG EHIRUH XV ZH GR QRW ILQG WKHUH LV
DQ\ YLRODWLRQ RI SULQFLSDOV RI QDWXUDO
MXVWLFH LQ FRQGXFWLQJ WKH HQTXLU\ DJDLQVW
WKH SHWLWLRQHUV
&DVH ODZ GLVFXVVHG
 6&&
-7 6&
 6&&
$OO (5
 83/%(&
 $:&

By the Court

1. The petitioner has challenged the
order
of
the
Vice-Chancellor
dated
26.5.2000 dismissing the petitioner from
service.

2. The petitioner was appointed to
the post of Lecturer in Psychology in the
Women's
College
on
13.4.1998.
A
serious allegation was made against her
that while she was working as Lecturer in
Psychology, women's college, Aligarh
Muslim University, Aligarh (hereinafter
referred to as AMU) and residing in a
quarter in the premises of Abdullah Hall,
she on 15th May 2000 had illegally
confined in her residence a girl student of
B.A. (Honours) III year course with the
active connivance of a Ph.D. student in
the Department of Psychology, AMU,
Sheikh Abdul Barkat Masood Ahmad.
The said girl was preparing for her
examination which was in progress. She
had offered Psychology as one of her
subjects. Her allegation was that she used
to take help of the petitioner. The
petitioner on 15th May 2000 at 12 Noon
asked her to come to her room, as she
wanted to give her some important
material relating with teaching.