In an appeal against a university order debarring a student for three years for using unfair means in an examination, the Acting Chief Justice held the appeal ill-advised as the student had already been leniently dealt with and dismissed it.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
LPA No.1221 of 2011 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
LPA No. 1221 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision 4.11.2011
Kamal Singh
. Appellant
Versus
Maharishi Dayanand University and others
.. Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr. P.P.Singh, Advocate with Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate for the appellant
M.M.KUMAR, Acg.CJ.
2
LPA No.1221 of 2011 (O&M)
clause 4(k) and (m) by inflicting the punishment contemplated under clause 8(i) and (ii) of the University Calendar. Accordingly the punishment of debarring him from appearing in the University examination for a period of three years was inflicted. The learned Single Judge summed up the findings as under:
“ Prima facie, it appears that the petitioner has used an ingenuine method to adopt unfair means in examination. He cooked up a story about meeting with an accident and suffering a fracture on the right hand. It is not conceivable that a person who suffered a fracture, would just seven days after be fit enough to take the examination by appearing without a plaster and without a scribe. Besides, the petitioner apparently has admitted to his guilt which is evident from Annexure P-5 (R1/1). The petitioner, however, denies the existence of this document. The Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has no means to determine as to whether such a document, which has been placed on record, is reflection of its genuineness or not. In the absence of this the Court is now left to examine as to whether the punishment awarded to the petitioner is excessive or was it in accordance with the provisions of the ordinance of the University or not. The charge against the petitioner is that he had made deliberate attempt to cheat in the examination, which is evident, as he had used the help of a scribe without there being any injury on his person. The signatures of the Chairman of the Law Department were also forged.”
3
LPA No.1221 of 2011 (O&M)
(M.M.Kumar) Acting Chief Justice
4.11.2011
(Rajiv Narain Raina) Judge
okg
Kamal Singh
Maharishi Dayanand University
M.M. Kumar
Rajiv Narain Raina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
