Dismissed

Himanshu Yadav v. University of Lucknow Thru. Registrar Distt. Lucknow and Another

Allahabad HC23 Jun 2023/5196/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ of certiorari to quash University of Lucknow's order cancelling his 3rd semester BCA examination due to alleged unfair means. Court found the petitioners acceptance of guilt and the University's procedure following the Unfair Means Ordinance sufficient to dismiss the petition.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 08.06.2023 quashing the petitioner's 3rd semester exam cancelled; petition dismissed.

Himanshu Yadav Vs University of Lucknow Thru… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:41628

¶2

Court No. - 3

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5196 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Himanshu Yadav Respondent :- University Of Lucknow Thru. Registrar Distt. Lucknow And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Aditya Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- Savitra Vardhan Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Aditya Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

¶7

By means of the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order/press note dated 08.06.2023 as well as for direction to opposite parties/University of Lucknow to remove the charges of unfair means with regard to the petitioner and also remove the tag of UFM against the petitioner for 3rd Semester. It is further prayed for direction to opposite parties/University of Lucknow to declare the result/marksheet of 3rd semester of BCA examination of the petitioner of March, 2023 including the result/marksheet of Paper-1, Computer based numerical and statistical techniques (paper Code BCA301) held on 02.03.2023.

¶8

While appearing in 3rd semester of BCA examination, the petitioner was alleged of adopting unfair means during examination. The invigilator and members of the flying squad including the members of the Proctorial Board had searched the petitioner and they had noted in a format that the petitioner was found copying some content from unfair material.

¶9

The petitioner upon asking told them that he was not using any unfair means and if they want, can tally the answer book of the petitioner from that alleged chit but the said checking staffs refused to hear anything from the petitioner and they took the petitioner's original answer book and give him a fresh answer book and told the petitioner that he has to write all the answers afresh in the new answer book.

¶10

It is submitted that the UFM form was signed by the petitioner forcefully by the checking squad but copy of such form has not been given to the petitioner and till date no any copy of UFM Form or anything related to the UFM action has

¶11

been given to him.

¶12

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was allowed to sit in all the remaining papers of 3rd semester examination of March, 2023 but the result of the entire 3rd semester examination of the petitioner has not been declared as well as it has been cancelled vide impugned order dated 08.06.2023.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that clause 14 of Unfair Means Ordinance, 2008 provides for constitution of a committee consisting of at least four members who will scrutinize the material found with the candidate during the examination and the answer book written by him and duly make a recommendation to the examination controller. It is provided in the ordinance that where unfair means are recovered from the candidate, his examination of the semester will be cancelled.

¶14

Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the committee has taken a decision to cancel the 3th semester examination of the petitioner in accordance with the aforesaid provision contained in the Ordinance.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that clause 9 of the Ordinance, Rules and Regulations of Faculty of Engineering, University of Lucknow provides that there shall not be any restriction for promotion from an odd semester to the next even semester. For promotion from even semester to the next odd semester the student has to secure 24 credits in the immediately preceding two semesters. He has submitted that in case the petitioner secures 24 grades in the 6th semester examination, he will be able to get promoted to 4th year without having passed 5th semester examination and he can appear in the 5th semester examination subsequently.

¶16

This submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been opposed by the learned counsel for the university and he has submitted that this general provision contained in Clause 9 of the Ordinances does not deal with the specific situation where a candidate's examination has been cancelled because of his having been found guilty of adopting unfair means.

¶17

In these circumstances, the general provisions regarding promotion would not apply to the persons as he had been found guilty of adopting unfair means.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid discussion, it appears that the petitioner was found guilty of adopting unfair means and he

¶19

accepted it before the Invigilator and members of the proctorial board.

¶20

There appears to be no illegality in the procedure adopted by the university before taking a decision to cancel the petitioner's examination.

¶21

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶22

Order Date :- 23.6.2023 kkv/

¶23

Digitally signed by :- KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Himanshu Yadav v. University of Lucknow Thru. Registrar Distt. Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himanshu Yadav v. University of Lucknow Thru. Registrar Distt. Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shesh Pal Singh @ Shiv Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Ravindra Ram (Pno 880500616) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and 4 Others

890650095 Umesh Chandra Pandey Vs State of U.P. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Hans Raj Adiwasi Pno. 960650749 and 26 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 5 Others

Balram @ Balram Shakyawar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Distt. Lko. and 3 Others

Dipak Kumar Thru. Its Brother in Law Sri Virendra Kumar Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and 5 Others