Court No. - 2
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 7306 of 2019 Applicant :- Dr. Sunita Sharma, And 3 Others Opposite Party :- Narendra Kumar Taneja, Vice Chancellor, Chaudhary Charan Singh University And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Ahmed Faizan,Syed Farman Ahmad Naqvi(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Opposite Party :- Avneesh Tripathi
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard Sri S.F.A. Naqvi, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Syed Ahmad Faizan, learned counsels for the applicant and Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsels, assisted by Sri Avneesh Tripathi, learned counsels for the opposite party.
The writ court while allowing the writ petition passed the following directions:
"Now coming to the reasons given in Para-6 of counter affidavit for passing such order. Such reasons have not been given in the impugned order. Therefore, in the light of reason given in Para-6 matter requires consideration. From perusal of the decision of the Examination Committee, it appears that some complaint has been received about the mal practice on the part of the Examiners being appointed by the University for conducting the Practical Examinations. This is a matter of great concern and has to be dealt with seriously by all means.
To maintain the purity, confidentiality of the examinations and to check the mal practices, we direct that the following procedures/directions be taken into account in addition to the procedures, which are being already followed:
(1) The team of the Examiners should be sent to the respective Colleges, as a surprise, without disclosing the names of the Examiners to the College concerned in advance. The Vice Chancellor of the University may prepare the list of name of Examiner to be sent to particular College, secretly and confidentially. Call all the Examiners to be present in the University in the Morning and thereafter they may be asked to go to the College where they have to take Examination. The team of the Examiners may be indicated the name of the College where they have to go to take Practical Examination only at the time of despatch of the team.
(2) Further, a procedure may be evolved that the names of the candidates should not be known to the Examiner and the Examiner may not be allowed to ask the name of the Examinee. The Examinee should be examined/assessed in the Practical Examination only on the basis of Code Number allotted to him.
(3) We also see no justification in making the seniormost teacher of the department of the self-financing College as the Convener of the Board of Examiner. It may lead to serious consequences which may lead to mal practice.
(4) Teacher of the same College may not be sent to same College as the Examiner.
(5) The team of the Examiners may be asked to give numbers on the date of the Practical Examination itself and the same may be put in a sealed cover.
(6) In case if any of the Examiner discloses his own name to the Examinee or asks the name of the Examinee, he may be debarred to be appointed as Examiner in future.
(7) A Team of Senior Teachers may be constituted to secretly and confidentially watch the whole process of taking examination, which may function under the direct control of the Vice Chancellor and report directly to the Vice Chancellor.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the direction to the Examination Committee to conduct the examination in the light of the directions given above.
Further, the Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Government of U.P., Lucknow is directed to circulate this order to all the Universities covered under the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 to follow the directions given by this Court, hereinabove, while conducting the examinations.
The Registrar General of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Government of U.P., Lucknow for compliance.
The Office is directed to provide a copy of this order to Sri Y.K. Yadav, learned Standing Counsel, for its onward transmission and followup action. "
The applicants before the Court are members of the Board of Studies of Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut (for short 'University').
It is urged that in view of powers conferred under Section 29 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973, in particular, clause (d) of sub-section (2), confers power upon the Board of Studies to propose the list of examiners to the Examination Committee.
In this back drop, it is urged that the list of examiners for B.Ed. practical examination approved by the Board of Studies on 25 July 2019, was submitted to the Examination Committee and the Examination Committee apart from engaging/appointing examiners proposed by the Board of Studies has invoked the services of teachers of unaided B.Ed. institutions. It is, therefore, urged that the direction issued by the writ court has been flouted. Further, the mandatory provision of Section 29 has not been violated.
On specific query, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the opposite party submits that the applicants do not dispute that the Examination Committee has considered the list of examiners submitted by the Board of Studies and have engaged most of them as examiners for the B.Ed. examinations. That apart the Examination Committee taking note of the fact that there are 450 unaided B.Ed. institutions affiliated to the University and in a two year course 900 practical examinations have to be conducted. Presently there are only 52 teachers/examiners available with the aided college. In the circumstances, it is not possible for the Examination Committee to undertake the mammoth task of conducting the B.Ed. examinations of 450 institutions effectively confining to the examiners recommended by the Board of Studies. Board of Studies has recommended 44 teacher of the affiliated colleges and approximately 150 retired teachers belonging to Gorakhpur, Raibareilly, Kanpur, Shimla, University of Delhi, Varanasi, Arnakulam etc. In other words, the teachers that have been suggested by the Board of Studies are from the areas where there are no college affiliated to the University. It is in this back drop, the Examination Committee had to take the decision engaging teachers of unaided B.Ed. colleges having 10 or more years of teaching experience as examiners On specific query, learned counsel for the applicant has failed to show from the writ court order that there is any prohibition from engaging any other teachers as examiners or that the Examination Committee is bound to accept the proposal of the Board of Studies in totality. It is not the case of the applicants that the examiners proposed by the Board of Studies has not been considered and/or accepted by the Examination Committee.
Section 13(1)(e) of the State Universities Act, 1973, casts a duty upon the Vice Chancellor of the University to hold and conduct University examinations properly and at due time. The duty has been cast upon the Examination Committee of the University to supervise all examinations of the University, including, moderation and tabulation, to make recommendations to the academic institution for improvement of examination system, to scrutinize the list of examiners proposed by the Board of Studies, finalise the same and declare the result of the University. Thus, the scheme of the Act primarily confers power and authority upon the Vice Chancellor functioning through various committees to hold and conduct University examinations. The decision of the University to engage teachers of unaided B.Ed. colleges is not in teeth of the provisions of the State Universities Act nor any such prohibition was pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant from the writ court order.
In view thereof, learned counsel for the applicants failed to show any wilful and deliberate disobedience of the writ court order.
The contempt petition is consigned to record. Notice, if any, stands discharged.
Order Date :- 26.11.2019 K.K. Maurya