Dismissed

Calicut University v. Aiswarya v.

Kerala HC22 Nov 2022WA/931/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court Bench dismissed the University of Calicut's appeal against an order quashing a show-cause memo in a plagiarism case. The Bench held that while the university lacked cogent evidence (like seized books or CCTV footage) to prove copying without the invigilator, directing the university to publish the candidate's result and keeping an option for future enquiry if evidence surface

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed; the impugned judgment setting aside the show-cause memo and directing result publication stands affirmed. University liberty to enquire remains.

Calicut University Vs Aiswarya v. — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 22^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶7

WA NO. 931 OF 2022

¶8

[AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.7641/2022 DATED 17.06.2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA]

¶9

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 - 3:

¶10

1 UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., MALAPPURAM - 673 635.

¶11

2 THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., MALAPPURAM - 673 635.

¶12

3 THE VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., MALAPPURAM - 673 635.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UNIVERSITY

¶14

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND 4TH RESPONDENT:

¶15

1 AISWARYA V. , AGED 23 YEARS, VADAKKECHAKKINGAL (H), PERINGOTTUKARA (PO), THRISSUR-680565.

¶16

2 THE PRINCIPAL, SREE NARAYANA COLLEGE, NATTIKA, NATTIKA POST, THRISSUR-680 566.

¶17

R1 BY ADV. SRI. C.A.JOJO R2 BY ADV. SRI. M.S. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.A. No.931 of 2022

-:2:-

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 22^nd day of November, 2022

¶23

S.MANIKUMAR,CJ

¶24

Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by a learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No.7641 of 2022 dated 17.06.2022, respondent Nos.1 to 3 therein have filed the instant writ appeal.

¶25

Short facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal are as under:

¶26

It is submitted by the appellants that 1^st respondent/writ petitioner was a student of Sree Narayana College, Nattika. She appeared for the 4^th semester M.Sc - Physics Examination, April - 2020. The valuation of the answer sheet of examination was conducted in a centralized valuation camp. The Chief Examiner of the camp reported that the answer script of the writ petitioner is a suspected answer script. In such circumstances, the University withheld the result of respondent No.1.

¶27

Appellants have further stated that malpractices in the examinations are usually detected in 2 stages of examinations; (1) at the stage of appearing for the examination in a center by the candidate; and (2) at the stage of valuing the answer scripts.

¶28

W.A. No.931 of 2022

¶29

-:3:-

¶30

According to the appellants, the case on hand is not the one detected at the time of appearing for the examination, but detected at the stage of valuation, and since the candidate has denied the charges, an enquiry was conducted and in the enquiry it was revealed that, the 1^st respondent has copied the verbatim answers from a text book of G. Arul Das. Thereupon, a 12 member committee was constituted with experts for examining the issue and a hearing was conducted on 24.02.2022.

¶31

Appellants have further stated that an expert opinion was also obtained with reference to the answer scripts and contents of the textbooks, from the Chairman of Board of Studies, and the Chairman also opined that the answers were exact copies of the content from the textbook. After considering the expert opinion, and the facts and circumstance of the case, the Controller of Examination, University of Calicut, appellant No.2, has concluded that malpractice has been committed by the 1^st respondent/writ petitioner and accordingly, Exhibit P11 memo dated 26.02.2022 was issued to her by the Assistant Registrar of 1^st appellant University. In Exhibit-P11 memo, it was stated as under;

¶32

a) The paper 'PHY4C12-Atomic and Molecular Spectroscopy' of IV semester M.Sc Physics of April- 2020 exam attended by the 1^st respondent stands cancelled.

¶33

b) She is debarred for one year i.e., upto April, 2021 and is permitted to attend this paper from 04/2022 onwards.

¶34

W.A. No.931 of 2022

¶35

-:4:-

¶36

c) In addition to this, the 1^st respondent has to remit an amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) and submit the original challan receipt with a copy of the memo to the Assistant Registrar, Calicut University within 15 days from the date of receipt of the memo.

¶37

The 1^st respondent, was therefore directed to show cause as to why the provisional decision should not be confirmed, and to issue final orders in this regard, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the memo. It was also directed, if no reply is received in the office of the Calicut University within the prescribed time limit, it will be presumed that

¶38

she has nothing to offer in the matter and the case will be disposed of accordingly.

¶39

It is thus challenging Exhibit P11 order issued by the Assistant Registrar of the 1^st appellant University, W.P.(C) No.7641 of 2022 was filed

¶40

seeking the following reliefs:

¶41

(i) to issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exhibit P11 order issued by the Assistant Registrar of the 1" respondent dated 26.02.2022

¶42

(ii) to stay Ext.P11 order and all further actions pursuant to Ext. P11 denying justice to the writ petitioner.

¶43

(iii) to issue a writ of mandamus calling for the suspected answer paper of the writ petitioner and the entire records led to issuance of Ext.P11.

¶44

(iv) to award cost to the writ petitioner.

¶45

(v) to issue such other relief as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶46

W.A. No.931 of 2022

¶47

-:5:-

¶48

Refuting the allegations, claims and demands raised by the writ

¶49

petitioner/1^st respondent herein, appellants have filed a counter affidavit before the writ court, they, inter alia, contended as under:

¶50

“A. Writ petitioner was a student of MSC Physics at Sree Narayana College, Nattika, with Reg. No. SNASMPH002 and she appeared for the IV semester MSC Physics Examination conducted in June, 2020. At the time of valuation, the Chief Examiner of Centralized Valuation Camp reported the suspected malpractice of the answer scripts of the petitioner. The Chief Examiner has reported that "while scrutinizing the answer scripts, 'PHY4C12 - Atomic and molecular spectroscopy”, it was found that most of the answers of the script are exact copies of the textbook content of 'Molecular Spectroscopy' by G. Arul Das. Even the equation numbers are exactly as per the text book. It is stated that there are reasons to take this as a clear case of suspected malpractice. Hence, the result of the petitioner withheld and matter was proceeded with by the University.

¶51

B. It was further contended that in case of suspected malpractice, the procedure to be followed is prescribed and the appellants/respondent have followed the mandated proceed as stipulated.

¶52

C. It was further contended that during enquiry, it was found that the writ petitioner has copied even the equation number. The charges in the memo were denied by the writ petitioner and that the Standing Committee considered the matter and

¶53

W.A. No.931 of 2022

¶54

-:6:-

¶55

a 12 member committee was constituted with experts and an online hearing was conducted on 27.04.2021. During the hearing, writ petitioner has denied the charges of suspected malpractice alleged against her. It was also stated that the committee members neither compelled nor pressurized her to admit the charges and the statement of the petitioner is totally against the facts and is false and misleading.

¶56

D. An expert opinion was obtained from the Chairman, Board of Studies regarding the answer-script of the Petitioner and the Chairman was of the opinion that many of the answers were exact copies of the content from the text of Arul Das G.

¶57

E. It was further contended that after having considered the expert opinion and the facts and circumstances of the case, the Controller of Examinations, University of Calicut, has concluded that malpractice has been committed by the petitioner and intimated to the petitioner, as stated supra.

¶58

F. It was further contended that the writ petitioner was also directed to show cause, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the memo, as to why the decision should not be confirmed. According to the appellants, this is the normal course of action in malpractice cases and the petitioner's case is only one among numerous cases dealt with by this University. The issue is purely an internal academic issue to maintain parity in examination.”

¶59

According to the appellants, submission made by the 1^st

¶60

respondent/writ petitioner that she has byhearted the textbook and

¶61

W.A. No.931 of 2022

¶62

-:7:-

¶63

reproduced the verbatim of the same, cannot be accepted. However, the learned single Judge, after considering the rival submissions and material on record, arrived at the following conclusions;

¶64

“6. When I evaluate the aforementioned submissions and go through Ext.P11, it is indubitable that the University has proceeded on the opinion of the Committee constituted by it. The said Committee is stated to have concluded that the answers of the petitioner were written by her copying from a book authored by Sri.G.Arul Das. However, even Ext.P11 does not say that the recovery of any book was made from the petitioner, or that she had committed any act of misconduct, including by copying from pre-prepared scripts or such other. This fact is affirmed by the Principal of the College, who admits that no complaint had reached him from either the Invigilators or the Examiners.

¶65

In this context, it is also relevant that, normally, Examination Halls are covered by Close Circuit Television cameras. I fail to understand why the University did not take advantage of such a facility and it is evident that it was not so done from Ext.P11 itself. Merely because the answer scripts of the petitioner bear great resemblance to a text book, it will be extremely difficult to hold affirmatively that it is a case of copying, particularly when neither the text book or other scripts had been seized from the petitioner or recovered from her.

¶66

To add to this, the fact that the University has not even cared to view the CCTV camera feed, if available, is also

¶67

W.A. No.931 of 2022

¶68

-:8:-

¶69

something which persuades this Court to hold in favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the University could not offer any satisfactory explanation on this either.

¶70

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and set aside Ext.P11; with a consequential direction to the Calicut University to publish the result of the petitioner with respect to the examination in question, which shall be done not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶71

I, however, leave full liberty to the University to conduct any enquiry against the petitioner if any germane or cogent evidence, including CCTV feed is found in future; for which purpose, their liberties are left open.”

¶72

Being aggrieved by the above judgment, appellants have filed the

¶73

instant appeal on the following grounds:

¶74

A. Learned single Judge erred in setting aside a show cause memo issued by the University to show cause, as to why final orders shall not be issued.

¶75

B. It is well within the powers of the University to take action in examination malpractice. The power to issue the notice, Exhibit-P11 is not under challenge. Hence, adjudicating the show cause notice on its merit by the learned single Judge is erroneous and faulty and in excess of jurisdiction and one liable to set aside.

¶76

C. It is further submitted that the malpractice in the examination are detected at 2 stages and the 1^st stage is

¶77

W.A. No.931 of 2022

¶78

-:9:-

¶79

while appearing for the examination and the 2^nd stage at the time of valuation. Merely because a candidate escaped the notice of the invigilator of copying, it cannot be presumed that she is saved forever. There may be cases where malpractices are conducted with connivance of the invigilator or sometimes not noticed by the invigilators, since 15-20 candidates are attending the examination in a hall. And that the invigilators are mainly the teachers of the same college. It is submitted that in such situations for many reasons the malpractice are not properly detected while writing the examination but that will not dis-entitle the University to proceed against a candidate, if detected subsequently. Evaluation of the examination are conducted by persons well versed in the subject and the copying from a textbook and books referable for the course can easily be detected by experts. It is a verbatim reproduction of the textbook.

¶80

D. The instant case falls under such a category. The answer scripts are found to be verbatim reproduction of the book 'Molecular Spectroscopy' by G. Arul Das, even though the equation numbers are exactly as per textbook. Hence it is a clear case of copying from a book which is nothing but an examination malpractice.

¶81

E. It is a clear case of malpractice and the learned single judge ought not to have interfered in such academic matters that too at a show cause stage.

¶82

F. It is further submitted that the statement of the Principal

¶83

W.A. No.931 of 2022

¶84

-:10:-

¶85

that no complaints have reached him from invigilators of examination, has no leg to stand, since once the examination is over the invigilator has no further role. But it does not mean that if the mal practice is not detected red handed a candidate can escape herself. The finding of the learned Single Judge that CCTV footage was not cared by the University, is without any material since the copying was not detected at the time of writing the examination.

¶86

G. The finding of the learned single Judge that neither the text book or other scripts had been seized or recovered from her, is not a reason to exonerate the candidate, since the answer scripts are the self-speaking material to arrive at a conclusion whether there is any copying of the answer scripts from any textbooks. The instances of copying in an examination are manifold and many ways and means are adopted by the candidates.

¶87

H. It is further submitted that the directions issued by the learned single Judge, leaving liberty to the University to conduct any enquiry, including CCTV feed is found in future, is without any substance, since the malpractice are in relation to the particular examination that is already conducted and not for any future events to happen.

¶88

I. The University is bound to maintain the purity of examinations. The punishment proposed to be imposed by the University is neither disproportionate nor unduly harsh and the debarring is only for one year.

¶89

W.A. No.931 of 2022

¶90

-:11:-

¶91

J. The University is dealing with large number of malpractice cases and full opportunity is given to the petitioner to defend themself if each and every stage of such action, if the jurisdiction of Article 226 in exercised it will have a serious impact on the examination and in turn will give leverage to dishonest candidate over meritorious candidates.

¶92

K. According to the appellants, the entire findings of the learned single Judge in paragraphs (7) and (8) of the impugned judgment, observations and the directions issued, are without appreciating the relevant statutory provision and legal position, and therefore, liable to be set aside.

¶93

Heard learned standing counsel for the appellants Mr.P.C.Sasidharan, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent/writ petitioner

¶94

Mr.C.A.Jojo, and perused the material on record.

¶95

Exhibit-P11 memo dated 26.02.2022 issued by the Assistant

¶96

Registrar, Pareeksha Bhavan (JCES-Office), Calicut University, to the 1^st respondents reads as under:

¶97

“PAREEKSHA BHAVAN

¶98

No.101333/PG-VII-ASST-III/2020/PB

¶99

Calicut University P.O., Dated, 26.02.2022

¶100

MEMO

¶101

Sub:Pareekshabhavan - PG Branch - Malpractice at University Examination - fourth Semester Msc Physics (CUCSS) April, 2020 Examination - provisional decision - reg.

¶102

W.A. No.931 of 2022

¶103

-:12:-

¶104

Ref:- 1) Letter received from the Chairperson, IV semester M.Sc. Physics 04/2020 (2018 Admn.) Centralized Valuation Camp.

¶105

1. Memo No.101333/PG-VII-ASST-III/2020/PB dated 10.10.2020.

¶106

1. Reply letter dated 24.10.2020 received from Ms. Aiswarya V.

¶107

1. Minutes of the meeting of the Standing Committee on Examinations held on 20/01/2021.

¶108

1. Minutes of the meeting of the Enquiry committee held on 27.04.2021.

¶109

1. Memo No.101333/PG-VII-ASST-III/2020/PB dated 03.03.2021.

¶110

1. Minutes of the meeting of the Enquiry committee held on 10.11.2021

¶111

1. Resolution ofthe Standing Committee dated 29.12.2021. 9) Orders of the PVC in the note file dated 25.02.2022.

¶112

The Chief Examiner, Centralised Valuation Camp for IV Semester Examination of M.Sc. Physics (CUCSS) 04/2020, PSMO College, Tirurangadi, has reported a suspected case of malpractice against Ms. Aiswarya V with Reg. No.SNASMPH002 in the paper 'PHY4C12 - Atomic and molecular spectroscopy' (Q.P.Code - C.80720) as per paper referred to (1) above. Therefore, a memo was issued to the student vide reference (2) directing to furnish an explanation on the matter. Since she has denied the SMP charges leveled against her in her reply cited third, the matter was placed before the Standing Committee of Syndicate on Examinations for consideration.

¶113

As per the reference (4), the Standing Committee held on 20.01.2021 considered the matter and resolved to constitute a 12 member committee to conduct a hearing in this case. As per the reference (5), the enquiry Committee conducted an Online hearing in this matter, on 27.04.2021. During the hearing, the student denied the charges of suspected case of malpractice against her. Based on the hearing, the enquiry Committee recommended to hear the Candidate, chief Examiner and chairperson in the next enquiry. Therefore, a memo was issued vide reference (6) directing her to be present for the next hearing to be held through online.

¶114

W.A. No.931 of 2022

¶115

-:13:-

¶116

As per the reference (7), the second hearing was held on 10.11.2021 and the enquiry Committee again denied the charges of suspected case of malpractice against her. In the circumstances, the enquiry Committee recommended to send the answer script and related documents of Ms. Aiswarya V. in respect of IV Semester Examination of M.Sc Physics (CUCSS) 04/2020, 'PHY4C12-Atomic and molecular spectroscopy' for expert opinion.

¶117

As per the resolution of the Standing Committee cited as (8) above, considering the expert opinion and facts and circumstances of the case, the Controller of Examinations, University of Calicut, has concluded that malpractice has been committed by the Aiswarya V., with Reg.No.SNASMPH002 in the paper 'PHY4C12-Atomic And Molecular spectroscopy' of IV Semester M.Sc. Physics of April, 2020 examination. In the circumstances stated above, the PVC has been ordered to impose the following penalties provisionally.

¶118

The paper 'PHY4C12-Atomic And Molecular spectroscopy' of IV Semester M.Sc. Physics of April, 2020 exam attended by Aiswarya V., with Reg. No.SNASMPH002 is cancelled and

¶119

She is debarred for one year i.e., upto April, 2021 & is permitted to attend this paper from 04/2022 onwards.

¶120

In addition to this, she has to remit an amount of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as fine and submit the original challan receipt with a copy of this memo, to the undersigned within 15 days from the date of receipt of this memo.

¶121

Ms. Aiswarya V., is therefore directed to show cause, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of this memo, as to why the provisional decision should not be confirmed so as to finalize the above mentioned provisional decision and to issue final orders in this regard. If no reply is received in this office within the prescribed time limit, it will be presumed that she has nothing to offer in the matter and the case will be disposed of accordingly.

¶122

Ashokkumar K.P. Assistant Registrar”

¶123

W.A. No.931 of 2022

¶124

-:14:-

¶125

The Provisional Certificate dated 15.07.2022 issued by the

¶126

University of Calicut//1^st appellant, including the Grade Sheet of Post Graduation Programme under Credit Semester System, to the 1^st

¶127

respondent is reproduced hereunder:

¶128

W.A. No.931 of 2022 -:15:-

¶129

W.A. No.931 of 2022

¶130

-:16:-

¶131

Attention of this Court was also invited by the learned counsel for the appellants to Chapter 18 - Rules to be followed in dealing with malpractice cases at University Examinations (approved by the Syndicate as per item Nos.84, 48 dated 31-1-84). Rule 1(b) in Chapter 18 of the said rules stipulates that in respect of malpractice cases detected during the course of valuation of answer papers by the additional examiners or Chief Examiners or Chairman, the Chairman in that particular subject, or receipt of a report from the additional or Chief Examiner, shall send a detailed report to the University containing full description of the type of malpractice suspected together with the relevant document and other materials.

¶132

Rule 8 of the said rules provides that the Vice Chancellor, in consultation with the sub-committee on Discipline constituted by the Syndicate, shall take a provisional decision as to the penalty to be imposed on the student or examinee.

¶133

Now, let us consider the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants.

¶134

In Union Public Service Commission v. Jagannath Mishra reported in (2003) 9 SCC 237 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered a case wherein the respondent Shri Jagannath Mishra, was a candidate for India Engineering Service during the year 1995 and he had appeared in the

¶135

W.A. No.931 of 2022

¶136

-:17:-

¶137

written test. The examiner, while examining the answer papers in civil Engineering Paper II (conventional), reported that the person having Roll No.006179 is suspected to have copied from the person having Roll No.006178. In view of the aforesaid report of the examiner, UPSC got the papers examined by an Expert Committee, which also reported that the same fact and that the latter has helped and connived in such copying. Hence, the UPSC issued show cause notice to both candidates. After hearing the submissions, the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus:

¶138

“4. Before we answer the questions posed, to have our conscience clear, we had called upon UPSC to produce the answer papers of both the candidates. We have carefully scrutinized the answer papers of both the candidates and on a thorough scrutiny of the same, we have no doubt in our mind that but for assistance and / or connivance of the respondent it would not have been possible for the other candidate to answer in the manner in which he has answered. As has been stated by this Court in the case of Prem Parkash Kaluniya v. Punjab University, [(1973) 3 SCC 424] in a matter like this it would be difficult to get direct evidence and so long as an inquiry is held to be fair and it affords the candidate adequate opportunity to defend himself, the matter should not ordinarily be examined by courts with the same strictness as applicable to criminal charges. The Court had further held that where findings are based on probabilities and circumstantial evidence, such findings cannot be said to have been based on no evidence. From the facts alleged, it is crystal clear that the respondent was a brilliant student. But, if a brilliant student is found to have adopted any unfair means in a competitive examination, he will have to bear the consequences of the same. Since we ourselves have examined the two answer papers in question and have

¶139

W.A. No.931 of 2022

¶140

-:18:-

¶141

come to the conclusion that but for the assistance or connivance of the respondent in some way or the other, it would not have been possible for the other candidate to answer his question paper in the manner in which he has answered, who was sitting just behind the respondent, we see no justification for the Tribunal to interfere with the conclusion of UPSC. The judgment of this Court on which the Tribunal as well as the High Court has placed reliance will have no application to the case in hand. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal committed serious error in interfering with the conclusion of UPSC and in interfering with the punishment awarded by it. The High Court also committed an error in affirming the said decision of the Tribunal. It is true that there has been no report from the invigilator indicating any malpractice by the respondent or the person who was sitting behind him. But, mere absence of such a report would not be sufficient to exonerate the delinquency, if otherwise a conclusion could be arrived at that but for the assistance of the respondent the candidate sitting behind him could not have copied in the manner he has done. The Tribunal as well as the High Court committed serious error by giving extra weightage for the absence of any report from the invigilator. It cannot be held as a principle that wherever there is no report from the invigilator indicating adoption of malpractice in any examination the appropriate authority cannot come to the conclusion about the adoption of malpractice. It would always be a case depending upon the materials produced and there would be no bar for an expert body to come to a definite conclusion about adoption of malpractice in an examination even in the absence of a report of the invigilator to that effect. It would always be a question of fact to be decided on the basis of materials produced before the expert body.”

¶142

19. That apart, in Union of India and Another v. Kunisetty

¶143

Satyanarayana reported in AIR 2007 SC 906 , relied by the appellants,

¶144

the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

¶145

W.A. No.931 of 2022

¶146

-:19:-

¶147

“13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or show cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramdesh Kumar Singh and Others, JT 1995 (8) SC 331 : 1995 AIR SCW 4710, Special Director and Another v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Another, AIR 2004 SC 1467 : 2004 KHC 495 : 2004 AIR SCW 416, Ulagappa and Others v. Divisional Commissioner, Mysore and Others, 2001 (10) SCC 639 : 2000 AIR SCW 4046, State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma and Another, AIR 1987 SC 943 etc.

¶148

The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show cause notice or charge sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge sheet or show cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and / or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show cause notice or charge sheet does not infringe the right of any one. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance.

¶149

No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases, the High Court can quash a charge sheet or show cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter.”

¶150

Material on record discloses that the writ petitioner/respondent

¶151

No.1 herein was aggrieved by Exhibit-P11 dated 26.02.2022, issued by the Assistant Registrar, Pareeksha Bhavan, Calicut University, directing the writ petitioner to show cause within 15 days from the date of receipt of the

¶152

W.A. No.931 of 2022

¶153

-:20:-

¶154

memo, as to why the the provisional decision should not be confirmed and to issue final orders in that regard.

¶155

Material on record further discloses that in the memo dated 10.10.2020, issued by the Assistant Registrar of Calicut University to the writ petitioner, it is stated that the University suspected a malpractice reported against the writ petitioner by the Chief Superintendent, University Examinations, PSMO College, Tirurangadi.

¶156

The allegation made against the writ petitioner is that while scrutinizing the answer scripts, most of the answers of the script were the exact copies of the textbook content of Molecular Spectroscopy written by G. Arul Das. It was on the basis of the same, writ petitioner is stated to have violated the rules and regulations of the University Examination and accordingly, explanation was sought from her.

¶157

Writ petitioner has submitted a reply dated 24.10.2020, to the memo dated 10.10.2020 denying all the allegations. According to her, she had byhearted the topic from the book mentioned above and the answers were given in the answer paper. She has also stated that there were no complaints of malpractice against her from the Examination Centre viz., Sree Narayana College, Nattika.

¶158

W.A. No.931 of 2022

¶159

-:21:-

¶160

Anyhow, being dissatisfied with the explanation submitted by the writ petitioner to the Assistant Registrar, a twelve member committee was constituted by the Standing Committee of Syndicate of Examinations to consider the case of the alleged malpractice against the writ petitioner. It seems that the writ petitioner has also submitted a detailed reply before the Vice Chancellor of Calicut University explaining the circumstances under which she has written the answers and also stating that no malpractice or copying was noticed by the Invigilators in the Examination Centre.

¶161

It is also clear that based on the apprehension expressed by the Professor, who valued the answer sheets in PSMO College, Tirurangadi that the University suspected that the writ petitioner has committed malpractice.

¶162

The case projected by the appellants is that the malpractice suspected by Calicut University is genuine since no student would be able to write the complete content of a textbook without leaving a word. Anyhow, the learned single Judge, after considering the pros and cons of the matter and taking into account the material on record, has arrived at the conclusion that no recovery of any book was made from the writ petitioner or any papers were recovered by the Invigilators at the Examination Centre.

¶163

W.A. No.931 of 2022

¶164

-:22:-

¶165

It is true that the learned single Judge has stated that normally examinations are covered by Close Circuit TV cameras. However, the contention put forth by the learned standing counsel for the appellant University is that there was no CCTV fitted in the Examination Centre and, therefore, the said finding made by the learned single Judge, cannot be sustained at all.

¶166

Ultimately in the impugned judgment, writ court found that the apprehension expressed by the Professors, who valued the answer scripts, is not substantiated by any evidence or documents other than saying that without looking into the textbook or the contents of the textbook, no answer could have been made by the student in the manner in which it is written in the answer paper. We are of the view that in absentia of any cogent evidence to substantiate the said contention, any action taken merely on the apprehension of the paper valuer, the inquiry committee and appellants cannot be sustained in law.

¶167

Moreover, as per the directions issued by the learned single Judge in the impugned judgment, results are published and provisional certificate is also issued to the writ petitioner. Further, liberty of the appellant University to conduct enquiry against the writ petitioner, if any

¶168

W.A. No.931 of 2022

¶169

-:23:-

¶170

cogent evidence is obtained, including CCTV footage, is left open. In that view of the matter and taking into account the subsequent developments, we are of the undoubted opinion that the appellants have not made out a

¶171

case of jurisdictional error or other legal infirmities, justifying interference with the impugned judgment in this intra court appeal.

¶172

In the result, writ appeal fails and accordingly, dismissed.

¶173

Krj

¶174

Sd/S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE

¶175

//TRUE COPY//

¶176

P.A. TO C.J.

Calicut University v. Aiswarya v.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Calicut University v. Aiswarya v.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Padmanabhan Vs Kerala State Library Council

Union of India Vs Smt.Yesodha

The Union of India Vs a.v.Devaki

Skilled Constructions Company Ltd. Vs Union of India

M/S Deens Group, Vs Cochin Smart Mission Ltd.

M/S .K.v.Jacob & Sons Vs Cochin Smart Mission Limited