HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY Writ Petition No.15372 of 2014 Date: 08-07-2014 Between:
Divi Poorna Chandra Rao .. Petitioner AND Jawaharlal Nehru Technical University, Kakinada, represented by its Registrar, East Godavari District and 3 others .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY Writ Petition No.15372 of 2014 ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not publishing result of the petitioner with reference to Physical Pharmacy (Code No.7204) subject appeared by him on 09-11-2010 as illegal and arbitrary.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined B. Pharmacy course in the 3rd respondent college during the year 2009 and appeared for the II semester examination during the month of November, 2010 with Hall Ticket No.09101R0010 and that in the II semester, he appeared for 9 subjects, but in the marks memo dated 28-12-2011, it was shown that he had appeared for 8 examinations and passed all the 8 subjects though he appeared for 9 subjects. It is stated that when he approached the 3rd respondent college, the 3rd respondent college addressed a letter on 07-03-2012 to the 2nd respondent for issuance of revised mark memo including Physical Pharmacy, and thereafter, reminders were given by the college on 04-07-2013 and 31-04-2013. In the meanwhile, the petitioner completed his course during the year 2013, but no provisional certificate was given on the ground that he appeared only for 8 examinations in the II semester, but not nine examinations. The respondents 1 and 2 have not been responding for the letters addressed by the 3rd respondent college and that the petitioner approached the respondents 1 and 2 several times, but in vain. In view of not issuing provisional certificate, the petitioner is unable to prosecute further studies. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.
2. The 1st respondent filed counter admitting that the petitioner appeared for Physical Pharmacy in the month of November, 2010 from the 3rd respondent-college, but the results were not declared by the 1st respondent as confirmed malpractice done at College level. It is stated that the answer booklet bearing Bar Code 89439532 and Serial No.3536796 was supplied by the 1st respondent University through the 3rd respondent college to the petitioner, but the 2nd respondent, who is Controller of Examinations, received the answer booklet with difference Bar Code 89166319, which was not assigned by the 1st respondent University, thereby the 1st respondent University suspected and confirmed malpractice done at the College Level and performance of the petitioner not declared by the 1st respondent University. It is further stated that the 1st respondent got issued reply notice dated 04-06-2014 to the notice issued by the petitioner.
3. The 3rd and 4th respondents filed counter admitting that the petitioner appeared for II semester examinations and wrote 9 examinations and that the D-Form, which was maintained by the college, sent to the University, which shows that the petitioner appeared for examination in nine subjects. It is stated that in the said examination, answer booklets were handed over to Nodal Centre, Guntur i.e. KKR and KSR Institute of Technology and Science, Vinjanampadu, Guntur District on 09-11-2010 and the marks memo, which was sent to the 3rd respondent college, indicates as if the petitioner appeared for 8 papers out of 9 papers and he appeared in the examination conducted for I semester of the second year and he appeared for Pharmacy Paper-II on 09-11- 2010 and on that day, the Invigilator obtained his signature in the Attendance Register and the marks list dated 28-12-2011 was received in the month of February, 2012. Immediately, on verification of marks sheets, when compared with D-Form, the college came to conclusion that due to inadvertence or mistake in respect of a student i.e. the petitioner with Hall Ticket No.09010 1R 0010 appeared for the II year I semester regular examination in the month of November, 2010, the marks list indicates as if he appeared for only 8 papers. Immediately, a letter was addressed to the 1st respondent on 07-03-2012 and the marks memo was returned to make necessary correction as the student has appeared for 9 papers and the said letter was acknowledged by the office of the 1st respondent on 08-03-2012 and even after addressing such letter, as there is no response from the respondents 1 and 2, the respondents 3 and 4 are pursuing the matter with the respondents 1 and 2 by making request to the University authorities to do justice to the petitioner. It is also stated that as there is no response from the respondents 1 and 2, the 3rd respondent sent a copy of the letter dated 07-03-2012 to the University authorities and apart from that, similar communications were also made on 4-9-2013, 20-11-2014, 22-02- 2014 and 12-04-2014 and though all the letters were acknowledged by the respondents 1 and 2, there was no response from them. It is further stated that when one of their faculty approached the Director of Evaluation on 10-12-2014 and explained the injustice caused to the student, the respondents, on his request, assured to depute one of the officers from the University to collect all the answer scripts pertaining to Physical Pharmacy-II and to trace out the said paper and that one of the employees of the University visited the 3rd respondent college on 22-02-2014 and that the 1st respondent used to send answer booklets to the respective colleges with OMR sheet containing Serial number, month, year, date of examination, Hall Ticket numbers, name of the student and name of the examination, for which the booklet is to be used along with subject code and college name and that while sending the OMR sheets, in some of the sheets, there is misprinting of bar code which is required to be printed at the time of preparation of answer booklets and that due to inadvertence, some of the booklets contain lesser number of pages than which it is required to be sent and to avoid inconvenience to the students, the University used to send unnamed answer booklets without having any name and hall ticket particulars of the students and that it is for the University to compare the answer booklets with D-Form and booklets which were circulated together with the Attendance Register and it is for the University to verify the above said procedure. The respondents 3 and 4 sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
4. The petitioner filed reply affidavit stating that the on 09-
11-2010 the answer booklet given to him did not contain his name and he has informed the same to the Invigilator about the same and the Invigilator spoken to the 4th respondent and informed him that he can proceed with the exam and that the petitioner was also informed that the 3rd respondent college has received lesser number of answer scripts than what is required and hence, he has written his answers on the answer sheet supplied by the 1st respondent to the 3rd respondent on that itself and there was no malpractice and that no notice was given to him or no opportunity was provided to conclude that there is confirmed malpractice.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.
6. In the instant case, the petitioner appeared for Physical Pharmacy examination held by the 1st respondent University on 09-11-2010 and when the marks memo was sent awarding marks for eight subjects, though the petitioner appeared for nine subjects, the respondents 3 and 4 addressed letters to the 1st respondent- University, but the 1st respondent-University at no point of time responded to the said letters. In spite of several reminders, at one point of time, the 1st respondent-University deputed some personnel, who visited the 3rd respondent college, but the respondents 3 and 4 categorically stated that there is no response from the 1st respondent-University. Even the petitioner emphatically stated that in spite of several representations to the 1st respondent-University, the 1st respondent-University had not responded at any time. In the counter filed by the 1st respondent University, the 1st respondent-University did not deny the said aspect, but surprisingly, even after a period of four years the 1st respondent-University has taken a different stand that because of confirmed malpractice the results of Physical Pharmacy examination in respect of the petitioner was not declared and now the 1st respondent-University taken a stand that there is difference with Bar Code. It is to be seen that the 1st respondent-University has not responded to any of the letters of the 3rd and 4th respondents or the petitioner. It is to be noted that as per the instructions issued by the 1st respondent-University, a notice should be given to the persons who involved in malpractice. But, all these years, the 1st respondent University kept quiet and only when the writ petition is filed, the 1st respondent University has taken such a plea and even the 1st respondent University did not communicate that the result of the petitioner in respect of Physical Pharmacy is withheld on this count. This itself shows that the 1st respondent University only to wriggle out the situation has taken this plea. Even assuming that it a case of the 1st respondent University that the petitioner has committed confirmed malpractice, the 1st respondent University should have issued notice to the petitioner as per the instructions issued by the 1st respondent-University, which the University did not do so. The respondents 3 and 4 categorically established by producing the relevant records that the petitioner appeared for the Physical Pharmacy examination and even in the reply also, the petitioner explained his position clearly.
7. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the stand taken by the University appears to be not correct and cannot be sustained. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to declare the result of the petitioner with reference to Physical Pharmacy (Code No.7204) subject appeared by him on 09-11-2010 and issue revised marks list accordingly. No costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J Date: 08-07-2014 Ksn