Archana Institute of Technology v. The State of Tamil Nadu

4.M. Jeevitha ..PetitionersVs.

The Controller of Examination, Anna University of Coimbatore, Mettupalayam Road, Jothipuram Post, Coimbatore – 641 047.

Archana Institute of Technology, run by Archana Educational & Charitable Trust, rep.by its Trustee D.Jayapal,N.H.7, Salem Main Road, Thimmapuram, Krishnagiri – 635 112.

Association of Management Coimbatore Anna University Affiliated Colleges, rep.by its President, J.Sudanandan,145, Thirunagar Colony, Erode – 638 003. ..RespondentsThis writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India, praying this Court to issue a writ of CertiorarifiedMandamus calling for the records of the first respondent University'stentative re-examination schedule and quash the same and direct the first respondent to form fresh committee to conduct the enquiry apart from the Anna University, Coimbatore, and to file report to the first respondent University. For Petitioners in W.P.Nos.5552: Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan,& 5915 of 2010 Senior Counsel for Mrs.AL.GandhimathiFor Petitioners in W.P.No.7568/2010: Mr.R.Karuppan for Mr.P.Tamil ManiFor 1st Respondent in W.P.No.5552: Mr.G.Sankaran,& 5915 of 2010/Govt. Of Tamil Nadu Spl. Government PleaderFor RR-2 to 5 in W.P.5552/2010;: Mr.R.Yashod Varadhan, RR-2 to 4 in W.P.5915/2010 & Senior CounselR-1 in W.P.No.7568/2010 for Mr.R.SivakumarFor R-5 in W.P.No.5915/2010 &: Mr.PalanimuthuR-2 in W.P.No.7568/2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For RR-6 & 7 in W.P.No.5915/2010: Mr.Kandhan Doraisamy& R-3 in W.P.No.7568/2010COMMON ORDERThe prayer in W.P.Nos.5552 & 5915 of 2010 are to quash the order passed by the Registrar of Anna University Coimbatore in his proceedings dated 16.3.2010, cancelling the B.E. Examinations first year, written by the students of the Archana Institute of Technology,(hereinafter called 'the Management'), Thimmapuram, Krishnagiri.

In February, 2010 the results were declared for the first semester and 123 students have passed out in all the subjects and only one student failed, that too in one paper i.e., EngineeringPhysics. Most of the students scored 85 to 90%, pursuant to which https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the management published an advertisement in Newspapers and congratulated the students, which according to the management is the practise adopted by other colleges also. On seeing the advertisements made in the Newspapers some of the nearby colleges, due to competition and enmity, through their association made acomplaint alleging malpractice by the students of the petitionerManagement in the first semester examinations held in January, 2010,pursuant to which the said examinations were cancelled by the impugned proceedings and the same was also reported in the Newspapers. Thereafter the petitioners approached the University and came to know that the examinations were cancelled by order dated16.3.2010.

On receipt of the impugned order dated 16.3.2010, the present writ petitions are filed on the ground that the University appointeda Committee consisting of four Senior Professors headed by the Syndicate member to enquire into the matter and the Committee has concluded that there is strong evidence relating to mass copying in the examinations held in the College and based on the report of the Committee, the University decided to cancel the first semester examinations held during January, 2010. The contentions of the petitioners are that the University having deputed Invigilators and Supervisors and the examinations having been conducted in their presence, who are posted from outside the college, and no complaint having been received from the Invigilators or supervisors, the University is not justified in cancelling the examinations on the basis of the complaint given by the Association of Managements, where the petitioner College management is not a member.

Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel and Mr.R.Karuppan, learned counsel appearing for the students submitted that the impugned order cancelling the first semester examinations was made by the University without any material as no complaint was made by the Invigilators or Supervisors, who were present at the time of examination hall. Not even any complaint was made while the answer https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ scripts were valued. The students were given good academic training by the management. Merely because their performance is more than average, the University is not justified in presuming something on mere suspicion and cancel the examinations of the students without any notice or opportunity of hearing either to the students or to the management, which has got civil consequences on the students and affecting the reputation of the management. The learned counsels further submitted that the Anna University Act gives power to the Syndicate alone to conduct examinations and all other incidental matters connected with the examinations and the Vice Chancellor has no power to appoint a committee and to cancel the examinations on the basis of the Committee's unilateral recommendations. There is unreasonable haste on the part of the Vice Chancellor in cancelling the examinations, i.e, on the date of the alleged report drawn by the Committee the decision was taken cancelling the examinations. Thelearned counsels further submitted that the Four Member Committeeappointed to enquire into the matter are working in member Collegesof the Association of the Managements and the complaint having been made by the said Association, the Teachers working in the said member colleges cannot be appointed as members as there is likelihood of bias in their decision. On the said grounds the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

Mr.R.Yashod Varadhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the University on the other hand submitted that the average pass percentage of the University being 55 to 60%, in the college where the present students appeared for the examinations, the percentage being 98.39%, a strong suspicion arises apart from the complaint received from the Association of Managements. Only to rule out the suspicion and to find out the truth, a Four Member Committee was constituted by the Vice Chancellor by exercising his powers under Rule 12(2) of the Anna University Act and the Committee scrutinised the answer scripts and found that there was mass copying. Based on the said report the impugned decision was taken and there is no illegality in the said decision. The students will not be affected as the University is going to conduct special examinations to these students for the first semester, so that these students also can appear in the regular second semester examinations to be held in May,2010, along with other College students. The learned Senior Counselalso submitted that since the complaint is relating to mass copying, individual notices to the students need not be issued as it is impossible to issue notice to the individual students before cancelling the examinations. Insofar as the allegation of bias against the four member Committee, the learned Senior Counselsubmitted that merely because they are staff members of the memberColleges, who are members of the Association of Managements, there cannot be a presumption of bias against the said four members. Hencethe said contention has to be rejected and if on any account the said argument is accepted, the University is willing to again scrutinise the answer papers with experts in the four subjects – Mathematics-I, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Engineering Physics, Engineering Chemistry, and Engineering Graphics, and time limit may be prescribed to comply with the said process, so that if it is found that there is evidence of mass copying, further orders could be passed.

Mr.G.Sankaran, learned Special Government Pleader also supported the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the University and contended that no notice need be given to the individual students as there is allegation of mass copying and the principles of natural justice need not be followed in this type of cases as per the judgments of the Supreme Court.

I have considered the rival submissions of the learnedSenior Counsels and other learned counsels appearing for all the parties.

Admittedly 124 students, admitted in the petitionerCollege, appeared for the first semester B.E. Degree examinations held in January, 2010. There was no complaint from the Invigilatorsor Supervisors, of whom some of them are admittedly from other colleges. The answer scripts were valued by the examiners and nothing was found against the students and no complaint was received from the examiners, who valued the answer scripts. Out of the 124students, 123 students passed in all subjects and the percentage is98.39%. Merely because there is higher percentage pass than the average results of the University, one cannot come to the definite conclusion that there was mass copying.

The reason for sending a complaint against the College by the Association of the Managements is due to the advertisement made by the management giving wide publicity with regard to the achievements of the students i.e, 98.39% of pass in the first semester examinations. It is the case of the University that not only on the basis of the complaint, but also to remove the suspicion with regard to the alleged mass copying, Four Members Committee was constituted to verify the answer scripts and to find out whether there was any mass copying in four papers viz., Mathematics-I,Engineering Physics, Engineering Chemistry and Engineering Graphics. After scrutiny of the papers, the Committee found prima faciematerials of copying and submitted a report, based on which the impugned order cancelling the examinations, was passed on the sameday by the University viz., the Vice Chancellor, and the order was issued by the Registrar.

The said report is attacked by the petitioners by contending that the members of the Four Member Committee are inimical towards the Archana Institute of Technology and its students as the said Institute has not become a member of the Association of Managements and the Committee members approached the issue in abiased manner to sustain the complaint given by the Association of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Managements. There is some substance in the said contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners as it is well settled inlaw that "Justice must not only be done, but must also appears to bedone". The allegation of bias must be ruled out to maintain purity in administration and to maintain confidence on the persons, whose rights are affected by the decision.

The Honourable Supreme Court considered the very issue of likelihood of bias in the decision reported in (1985) 4 SCC 417(Ashok Kumar Yadav V. State of Haryana) and in paragraph 16 held thus,"

We agree with the petitioners that itis one of the fundamental principles of our jurisprudence that no man can be a judge in hisown cause and that if there is a reasonable likelihood of bias it is “in accordance with natural justice and common sense that the justice likely to be so biased should be incapacitated from sitting”. The question is not whether the judge is actually biased or in fact decides partially, but whether there is a real livelihood of bias. What is objectionable in such a case is not that the decision is actually tainted with bias but that the circumstances are such as to create a reasonable apprehension in the mind of others that there is a likelihood of bias affecting the decision. The basic principle underlying this rule is that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done and this rule has received wide recognition in several decisions of this Court.

The learned Senior Counsel for the University fairly submitted that in the event this Court come to the conclusion that the constitution of the Committee is bad and its decision cannot betaken into consideration to cancel the examinations, the Universityis willing to appoint a fresh panel to go into the answer scripts and verify whether there was mass copying or not. The name of the members of the fresh panel of experts suggested by the learned SeniorCounsel for the University are as follows: Mathematics-I: Dr.P.Vijayaraju, Professor & Head, Dept. Of Mathematics Dr.K.Ekambavanan, Professor, Department of MathematicsEngineering: Dr.K.SivakumarPhysics Professor & Head, Department of Physics Dr.P.K.Palaniswamy, Professor, Department of PhysicsEngineering: Dr.V.Sadasivam, Chemistry Professor & Head, Department of Chemistry https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Dr.S.Nanjundan, Professor, Department of ChemistryEngineering: Dr.G.Ramaiyan, (Retd. Prof. Of Mech. Engg)Graphics Now Adviser, Office of the Controller of Examinations, Anna University, Chennai. Dr.N.S.Parthasarathy, Professor, Dept.of Mechanical EngineeringThe learned Senior Counsel as well as learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/students have not objected the new names suggested by the University, however submitted that there is no material available to scrutinise the answer scripts and merely because the students havefaired well in the examinations, they need not be penalised by conducting scrutiny of answer scripts.

Since there is allegation of bias against the Committeemembers constituted by the University and the University is willing to verify the answer scripts by other experts, I am not expressing any opinion on the findings given by the Four Member Committee. According to he petitioners, the Syndicate is the competent authority to decide about the conduct of examinations. The powers of the Syndicate is stated in Section 22 of the Anna University Act. Section 22(l) deals with issuance of degrees, titles and diplomas andother academic distinctions. Since there is allegation against the constitution of Four Member Committee by the Vice Chancellor and hasty decision was taken by the Vice Chancellor on the day when thereport was submitted, it is better if the issue is placed before the competent authority to go into these aspects and shall decide whether there is any sufficient material to enquire into the allegations levelled against the students of the petitioner college. Theappropriate authority on satisfaction can appoint a Committee of Experts as suggested by the learned Senior Counsel for the University.

The learned Senior Counsel and the learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously argued for issuing notice before issuing any further order if the competent authority decides to proceed furtherin the matter. The students will be in a position to establish their innocence before passing any further adverse orders in the matter. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and the learned SeniorCounsel and Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents cited decisions in support of their contentions. The learned counselfor the petitioners contended that the number of students being 123and they having been declared as pass in the first semester examinations, there may not be any difficulty in issuing notice to the students before passing any further order so that principles of natural justice would be complied with. In support of the said contention learned counsels relied on the judgment of the SupremeCourt reported in 2009 (2) CTC 185 (Uma Nath Pandey v. State of U.P.) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ wherein the need for compliance of natural justice is explained while any adverse order is passed affecting the civil rights of the citizens by quasi judicial or administrative authorities. On the contrary the learned counsel for the University as well as learnedSpecial Government Pleader cited (1970) 1 SCC 648 (The Bihar SchoolExamination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha); (2000) 3 SCC 59(Chairman, J&K State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik); (2002)5 SCC 533 (B.Ramanjini v. State of A.P.) and (2003) 8 SCC 311 (RamPreeti Yadav v. U.P.Board of High School and Intermediate Education)and contended that no individual notice need be issued to the students while there is allegation of mass copying.

Since I am setting aside the order after accepting the plea of likelihood of bias against the Four Member Committee and remitting the matter to the competent authority for considering the issue afresh, I am not expressing any opinion about the issuance of notice to individual students who are numbering 123. However, if the authority decides to proceed further in the matter, the number of students being 123 and all the said students were already declared pass in the first semester examinations, the authority may bear-in-mind and decide as to whether the individual students would be given an opportunity to explain their innocence, if the scrutiny of answer scripts is ordered to be made by the panel of experts to be nominated by the competent authority.