Allowed

Akshat Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2019WRIC/14831/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court upheld the University's order cancelling the petitioner's result due to use of unfair means, supported by a forensic handwriting expert report. The court directed the authority to share the report, consider objections, and decide within two months whether the petitioner can reappear for the semester examination.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to apply for the handwriting expert report and obtain admission in the 4th semester examination; proceedings to conclude within two months.

Akshat Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14831 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Akshat Singh Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

The result of the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that the petitioner had used unfair means in the 4th semester of the B.T.C. Examination-2015. The petitioner approached this Court by instituting a writ petition registered as Writ C No. 4440 of 2019, Akshat Singh Yadav Vs. State of UP and Others entered on 28.02.2019. This Court in the said writ petition, the remitted the matter to the respondent authorities with the following directions:

¶6

"By the order dated 11.12.2018, the result of the petitioner in the subject of Mathematics in the 4th Semester Examination of the B.T.C. Course2018 has been cancelled.

¶7

The submission of Sri Pradeep Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The order is a non-speaking order and does not disclose the nature of the unfair-means material allegedly used by the petitioner. He refutes the charges against him.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the fact that the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing by the Examination Regulatory Authority, Alenganj, Prayagraj U.P.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶10

This Court finds that the order dated 11.12.2018 cancels the result of the petitioner on the ground of use of unfair-means. The order visits the petitioner with penal consequences. The order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The order is arbitrary, illegal and cannot stand.

¶11

The order dated 11.12.2018 passed by the committee comprising over the Registrar, Examination Regulatory Authority, Prayagraj, U.P., Principal, DI.E.T., Lucknow, Principal, State Education Institution and Secretary, Examination Regulating Authority is quashed.

¶12

The matter is remitted to the respondent No.4-Examination Regulatory Authority, Alenganj, Prayagraj, U.P. A writ of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent No.4Examination Regulatory Authority, Alenganj, Prayagraj to execute the following directions:

¶13

1. The respondent No.4-Examination Regulatory Authority, Alenganj, Prayagraj shall issue a show cause notice to the petitioner giving the details of the charge of use of unfair-means against him. Any adverse material, which is proposed to be used against the petitioner, shall be provided to the petitioner.

¶14

2. The petitioner shall be given an opportunity to tender his defence to the aforesaid charge.

¶15

3. The Examination Regulatory Authority or the Examination Committee whichever is empowered to take a decision in the matter shall give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

¶16

4. The exercise shall be completed within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶17

5. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the authorities and he seeks two days' time to tender his defence to make his oral submissions before the competent authority after receipt of the show cause notice.

¶18

It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the veracity of the claim of the petitioner nor has judged the case of the petitioner on merits. It is for the competent authority to do so after independent application of mind and in accordance with law and the procedure stipulated in preceding paragraphs.

¶19

The writ petition is allowed."

¶20

Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing before the respondent Board. The petitioner duly tendered a written statement of defence against the charge of use of unfair means. After hearing the petitioner and considering the written statement of his defence, the controversy was decided by order dated 10.04.2019.

¶21

The order dated 10.04.2019 records the defence tendered by the petitioner of using unfair means. The petitioner contended that he was not aware how the second answersheet under his name and roll number, came into existence. The petitioner simply prayed that the answersheet in which he obtained 21 out of 25 marks should be declared his answersheet and the result be finalized accordingly.

¶22

The defence of the petitioner did not find favour with the respondent authorities. After considering the material in the record, the order dated 10.04.2019 records that one of the answersheets was written at some other place.

¶23

Both answersheets were in the handwriting of the petitioner. The burden of proving that the one of the answersheets was not in his handwriting, was thus on the petitioner. He failed to discharge the burden before the authorities. The charges against

¶24

the petitioner thus stood established.

¶25

Learned Standing Counsel has produced the handwriting expert report submitted by the Forensic Science Laboratory, U.P., Lucknow.

¶26

The Forensic Science Laboratory report was prepared by the expert after taking a handwriting sample of the petitioner and comparing the same with the disputed answersheets. The handwriting expert report finds that "the form and production of Hindi, English, letters, words, figures and their combination present in the disputed answerbook and sample of handwriting also agreed."

¶27

Prima facie, conclusion of the handwriting expert also indicts the petitioner.

¶28

The order dated 10.04.2019 is a reasoned order which finds that the charge of use of unfair means stood established and earlier order cancelling the candidature of the petitioner for use of unfair means dated 11.12.2018 was affirmed. A handwriting expert report was called for by this Court.

¶29

Consequently, this Court cannot interfere with the order passed by the authority assailed in the instant writ petition.

¶30

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the prayer made in the writ petition and recasts his relief. He makes twofold prayers. He submits that the petitioner may be provided with a copy of the handwriting expert report and granted liberty to challenge the same before the respondent Board. He further submits that the petitioner may be permitted to appear in the 4th semester examination of the B.T.C. Examination- 2015.

¶31

In the light of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is open to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondent authorities for a copy of the handwriting expert report. In case such application is made, the respondent authority shall provide a copy of the handwriting expert report to the petitioner.

¶32

The petitioner may submit his objection to the handwriting expert report. The Examination Regulatory Authority, Prayagraj shall consider the objections to the petitioner to the handwriting expert report and pass an order in the matter. The order dated 10.04.2019 assailed in the instant writ petition shall abide by the order passed by the authority after deciding the objections of the petitioner.

¶33

The authority shall also consider the application of the petitioner, to be permitted to appear in the IV semester of B.T.C. examination 2015, as per the provisions of law applicable to candidates who are found guilty of using unfair means. The decision in this regard shall be taken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order along with a copy of the representation.

¶34

The copy of the handwriting expert report and other documents are handed over the learned Standing Counsel.

¶35

The writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶36

Order Date :- 4.7.2019 Dhananjai

Akshat Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akshat Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Centre Superintendent/Principal C.R.S. Interm. College and Anr. Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secr. Secondary Education and Anr.

Ramesh Raj Vs Anil Kumar

Pawan Kumar and Ors. Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secr. Madhyamic Shiksha Parishad and Ors.

Hari Krishna Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Axis Institute of Pharmacy and Another Vs All India Council for Technical Education and Another

Vishu Rathaur Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others