Punjab and Haryana High Court rejects law student’s plea against disqualification from exam by Panjab University

As per the case, on April 26, 2024, a show cause notice, was issued to the petitioner, accusing him of putting identification marks on his answer book in violation of Regulation 25 of the PU Calendar Volume (II), 2007, and seeking his reply as to why action should not be taken against him under the said Regulation.

The show cause notice further mentioned that the petitioner would be given a questionnaire to be replied by him on the spot and his answers to the questions or any other material submitted and relied upon by him would be placed before the Unfair Means Committee of the University for action.

On May 6, 2024, the petitioner was informed that the Committee members had unanimously decided to disqualify him from the examination concerned, including the examination in which he was found guilty, under Regulation 25 of the Panjab University Calender Volume (II), 2007.

It was reported by the evaluator that the “petitioner had tried to give a symbol for identifying his answer sheet and had written words/sentences, which were not relevant for the purpose of the examination and which was prohibited as per the instructions of the answer sheet”.

It was further stated that three words/sentences mentioned on various pages of the answer sheet were in violation of Regulation 25 of the Panjab University Calendar Volume (II), 2007 and that after hearing the petitioner, the unfair means case against the petitioner was decided by the Unfair Means Committee as the Committee members were of the view that he had deliberately made the said marks, which were distinctive marks and further unanimously concluded that there was no ground for inadvertence existed in the same.

The petitioner challenged the PU order arguing that three words/phrases used by him in the answer sheet would not disclose his identity, and thus Regulation 25 would not stand violated. Also, the PU order is a non-speaking order and thus deserves to be set aside.

Hearing the matter, the single bench of Justice Vikas Bahl, first reproduced Regulation 25 of the Panjab University Calendar Volume (ii), 2007, as per which “if any candidate is found guilty of deliberately disclosing his identity or making any distinctive marks in his answer book, for that purpose shall be disqualified for the period mentioned in the said Regulation.”

Justice Bahl said, “It is not in dispute that the petitioner had written the three words/phrases in his answer sheet and the said words/phrases have been mentioned in the impugned order. It is also not disputed that three words/phrases were neither answers to any question nor were relevant to the paper.

Members of the Standing Committee were of the unanimous view that the words/phrases used by the petitioner in the answer book were distinctive marks and his intention appears to be mala fide. It has also been noticed that there were specific instructions on the answer sheet at points No. 7 and 8 which also prohibited the students from writing any irrelevant material on the answer sheet.”

“Apparently, the above regulation No. 25 has been incorporated with the purpose that the candidates do not write anything on the answer sheet, which is distinctive and may indicate to an evaluator that the paper is of that particular candidate”, added Justice Bahl.

The Bench, thus, dismissing the plea held that the decision taken by the University on May 6, 2024 was under Regulation 25.