JUDGMENT G.P. Mathur, J.
1. Vikas Jain (writ petitioner and respondent in appeal) seeking admission in B.Com.. Part I in Banaras Hindu University in the academic session 1997-98 appeared in the Undergraduate Entrance Test. An intimation dated 19.7.1997 was sent to him from the University that he had qualified in the test. He went to deposit the admission fee which was not. accepted and ultimately he was denied admission. He then filed Writ Petition No, 26317 of 1997 which was allowed by a learned single Judge by the Judgment and order dated 28.11.1997 and the appellants herein (respondents in writ petition) were directed to admit him in B.Com. Part I in the academic session 1997-98. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and order, the University has preferred this Special Appeal.
2. The case set up by Vikas Jain in writ petition was that he had appeared in the Entrance Test seeking admission in B.Com. Part 1 in the academic session 1996-97 but the invigilator prevented him from answering the whole paper. He then applied for admission in the academic session 1997-98 for which he was issued admit card by the University to appear in the Entrance Test which was held on 10.6.1997. He qualified in the test and intimation to that effect was sent by the University asking him to attend the office on 1st and 2nd August, 1997 for depositing the fee and to complete other formalities. He went several times to the University office but ultimately he was orally informed that he would not be granted admission in the University. The University filed a counter-affidavit and the plea taken therein was that while appearing in the Entrance Test held for the academic session 1996-97, the writ petitioner was found talking to another student and, therefore, he was debarred from appearing in any future examination of the University. This action had also been approved by the Vice-Chancellor on 26.6.1996.
3. The learned single Judge held that no notice had been given to the writ petitioner nor he was given any opportunity to explain his conduct and, therefore, the decision of the University to debar him from any future examination was illegal. It was further held that it was not conclusively proved that the writ petitioner had talked to another student and even assuming that he had done so it could not lead to an inference that he had resorted to unfair means.
4. Shri V. K. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the findings recorded by learned single Judge are factually and legally incorrect and consequently, the direction issued to admit the writ petitioner cannot be sustained. Shri R. N. Singh learned senior Advocate for the writ petitioner has supported the Judgment of the learned single Judge and has urged that no proceedings had been taken in accordance with the principle of natural Justice for debarring the writ petitioner from any future examination of the University and therefore, the learned single Judge rightly issued a writ directing the appellants to admit him in B.Com. Part 1 class.
5. The law regarding use of unfair means in the examination by the students and the action to be taken therein has been settled by a Pull Bench decision of this Court in Triambakpatt Tripathi v. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P., AIR 1973 All I, and it has been held that the Examination Committee while dealing with the cases of examinees using unfair means in the examination hall acts quosi-Judicially and the principle of natural justice apply to the proceedings before it. The essential principles of natural justice that are to be observed by an authority dealing with the case in quasi-Judicial manner are as follows :
(1) The person whose rights are to be affected must be given notice of the case or the charges which he has to meet ;
(2) He must be given an opportunity to make a representation and to explain the allegations made against him and to have his say in the matter; and (3) The authority conducting the proceedings must not be biased and should act in good faith.
According to the appellants, the writ petitioner was found talking to another student bearing Roll No. 42092 on 10.6.1996 while he was appearing in the Entrance Test for the academic session 1996-97 and a notice was given to him forthwith by the Invigilator. The decision to debar the writ petitioner was thereafter taken on its basis. A copy of notice which is alleged to have been given to the writ petitioner has been filed as Annexure-2 to the Stay Application. It is in a printed proforma and on the top of it, following is mentioned in bold letters :
STATEMENT OF UNFAIR PRACTICE REPORTED FROM VARIOUS ENTRANCE EXAMINATION CENTRES.
No other notice was given to the writ petitioner nor any kind of opportunity at any subsequent point of time was given to him to explain the allegations allegedly levelled against him. The document does not show that it is a notice to a student asking him to explain any allegation against him. It is merely a report by the Invigilator or the Co-ordlnator of the examinations wherein signature of the candidate is also obtained. From the case set up by the University and the materials placed on record, we are not satisfied that any notice regarding allegation of using unfair means had been given to the writ petitioner or he was given an opportunity to give an explanation. The appellants have not been able to establish that the principles of natural justice had been observed when they took the decision to debar the writ petitioner from any future examination of the University on the ground that he was found talking to another student during the course of Entrance Test held on 10.6.1996 for the academic session 1996-97.
6. Even on merits, we are of the opinion that it cannot be said with certainly that the writ petitioner had used unfair means during the course of Entrance Test held on 10.6.1996 for the academic year 1996-97. The instruction No. 10 appended to the Booklet of the University for Undergraduate Entrance Test, which has a bearing on the controversy, reads as follows :
"10. An examinee found using unfair means during the examination shall be disqualified to take the Entrance Test Examination and also be debarred from future Entrance Test Examination of the University. The malpractice and unfair means shall include :
Possession of any unauthorised document/paper/information materials or any resource materials :
Communication of information In writing or verbally or exchange of booklet/answer sheets to and from any other person during the examination period and any other malpractice amounting to obtaining undue advantage : and impersonation."
A reading of the instructions would show that a communication of information verbally may amount to malpractice or unfair means. The word information is important and it necessarily means some sort of communication which has a connection or bearing on the answers to the questions put in the examination. An oral talk may not necessarily amount to "communication of information" which may come within the ambit of unfair means. It may depend upon the nature of talk and the duration thereof. There can be a talk which may not at all amount to communication of information. By way of example, if the pen or pencil of a student falls down from his table and rolls over near another student and he merely asks the other student to hand over the same to him, it will not be communication of information relating to the subject-matter of the examination so as to come within the purview of the expression 'unfair means'. The material on record gives no indication regarding the nature or duration of talk allegedly made by the writ petitioner. Therefore, it is not possible to hold on facts that his case was covered by instruction No. 10.
7. For the reasons mentioned above, we find no ground which may warrant Interference with the judgment of the learned single Judge. The Special Appeal is consequently dismissed at the admission stage.