IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE9H DAY OF JANUARY201419TH POUSHA, 1935 WP(C).No.24889 of 2013 (I) ---------------------------- PETITIONERS: ----------- 1. ANOOP.A. NAIR, ANUPAM, KADAKKAVUR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 306 (REG.NO.10127005).
2. KRISHNA R.K R.K BHAVAN, PUTHUKUNNU, POWDIKONAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (REG.NO.10127035).
3. ANILA G.L., KANNERUVILAKATHU VEEDU, PUTHUMANGALAM, MITHRANIKETHAN P.O, VELLANAD THIRUVANNATHAPURAM (REG.NO.10127018).
4. ANUSHA. B.S., ANOOP BHAVAN, USHAMALAKKAL, CHAKRAPANIPURAM PUTHUKULANGARA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695541. (REG.NO.10127022).
5. ANAKHA K.NAIR, NANDANAM, KADAMNARAKONAM, NELLANADU P.O, VAMANAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (REG.NO.10127016).
6. GREESHMA R.P., GREESHMA VIHAR, MUNDELA P.O, VELLANAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 543, (REG.NO.10127030).
7. AMITHA K.P., K.P NIVAS, ANNAL, PIRAPPANCODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695607(REG.NO.10127014).
8. DIVYA BABU, DIVYA BHAVAN, MELATTUMOOZHY, KARIMKUTTIKKARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 606(REG.NO.10127028).
9. LIJA.P, KAIPPALLY VEEDU, KALIYIKKAL, KUDAVOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (REG.NO.10127036).
10. ASWATHY.B.S, ASWATHY NILAYAM, ALATHARA, SREEKARIYAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (REG.NO.10127025). WP(C).No.24889 of 2013 (I) 11. GEETHU SUNEETHA, G.S BHAVAN, CHANNANKARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (REG.NO.10127029).
12. ANJIMA B.M., VRINDAVANAM, ALATHARA, SREEKARIYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (REG.NO.10127020).
13. ASWATHY V.S, PLAVILAKATHU VEEDU, TC792707, VENPALAVATTOM, ANAYARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 029.(REG.NO.10127024) 14. ARISH M.R., REMYA BHAVAN, VAMANAPURAM, VAMANAPURAM P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (REG.NO.10127006). BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENTS: ----------- 1. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY BUILDING, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE SYNDICATE, STUDENTS DISCIPLINE, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
4. THE PRINCIPAL, S.N.COLLEGE, CHEMBAZHANTHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R4 BY ADV. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU R1-R3 BY ADV.SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM, SC, KERALA UTY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0901-2014, ALONG WITH WPC. 24895/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 24889 of 2013 (I) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: --------------------- EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE RESULTS PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY AND DOWNLOADED BY THE3D APPLICANT SHOWING THAT SHE HAD PASSED HER6H SEMESTER EXAMINATION. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE RESULTS PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY AND DOWNLOADED BY THE4H APPLICANT SHOWING THAT SHE HAD PASSED HER6H SEMESTER EXAMINATION. EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE RESULTS PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY AND DOWNLOADED BY THE5H APPLICANT SHOWING THAT SHE HAD PASSED HER6H SEMESTER EXAMINATION. EXHIBIT P3(A).TRUE COPY OF THE RESULTS PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY AND DOWNLOADED BY THE6H APPLICANT SHOWING THAT SHE HAD PASSED HER6H SEMESTER EXAMINATION. EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE RESULTS PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY AND DOWNLOADED BY THE7H APPLICANT SHOWING THAT SHE HAD PASSED HER6H SEMESTER EXAMINATION. EXHIBIT P4(A).TRUE COPY OF THE RESULTS PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY AND DOWNLOADED BY THE11H APPLICANT SHOWING THAT SHE HAD PASSED HER6H SEMESTER EXAMINATION. EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE RESULTS PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY AND DOWNLOADED BY THE14H APPLICANT SHOWING THAT SHE HAD PASSED HER6H SEMESTER EXAMINATION. EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO.SDC/195/13 DATED227.13 ISSUED TO THE9H PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTION PAPER OF TRANSLATION STUDIES, OF THE6H SEMESTER BA DEGREE EXAMINATION CONDUCTED IN APRIL, 2013. EXHIBIT P8. TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWER SHEET OF THE TRANSLATION STUDIES PAPERS, OF THE IST PETITIONER, RECEIVED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXHIBIT P9. TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWER SHEET OF THE TRANSLATION STUDIES PAPERS, OF THE2D PETITIONER, RECEIVED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXHIBIT P10.TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWER SHEET OF THE TRANSLATION STUDIES PAPERS, OF THE3D PETITIONER, RECEIVED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXHIBIT P11.TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWER SHEET OF THE TRANSLATION STUDIES PAPERS, OF THE4H PETITIONER, RECEIVED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXHIBIT P12.TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWER SHEET OF THE TRANSLATION STUDIES PAPERS, OF THE5H PETITIONER, RECEIVED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. WP(C).No. 24889 of 2013 (I) EXHIBIT P13.TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWER SHEET OF THE TRANSLATION STUDIES PAPERS, OF THE6H PETITIONER, RECEIVED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXHIBIT P14.TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWER SHEET OF THE TRANSLATION STUDIES PAPERS, OF THE7H PETITIONER, RECEIVED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXHIBIT P15.TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWER SHEET OF THE TRANSLATION STUDIES PAPERS, OF THE8H PETITIONER, RECEIVED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXHIBIT P16.TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWER SHEET OF THE TRANSLATION STUDIES PAPERS, OF THE9H PETITIONER, RECEIVED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXHIBIT P17.TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWER SHEET OF THE TRANSLATION STUDIES PAPERS, OF THE10H PETITIONER, RECEIVED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXHIBIT P18.TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWER SHEET OF THE TRANSLATION STUDIES PAPERS, OF THE11H PETITIONER, RECEIVED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXHIBIT P19.TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWER SHEET OF THE TRANSLATION STUDIES PAPERS, OF THE12H PETITIONER, RECEIVED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXHIBIT P20.TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWER SHEET OF THE TRANSLATION STUDIES PAPERS, OF THE13H PETITIONER, RECEIVED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXHIBIT P21.TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWER SHEET OF THE TRANSLATION STUDIES PAPERS, OF THE14H PETITIONER, RECEIVED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXHIBIT P22. TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE SYNDICATE ON STUDENTS DISCIPLINE RECORDED ON267.2013. EXHIBIT P23. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED37.13 OF SRI.SREEKUMAR, CHAIRMAN OF THE VALUATION CAMP. EXHIBIT P24. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED47.13 OF SRI.GOPAKUMAR, THE CHIEF EXAMINER. EXHIBIT P25.TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED126.13 OF SMT.PADMINI KUTTY, ADDITIONAL EXAMINER. EXHIBIT P26.TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SYNDICATE HELD ON277.2013. EXHIBIT P27.TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED58.2013 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE IST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P28.TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED58.2013 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE2D PETITIONER. WP(C).No. 24889 of 2013 (I) EXHIBIT P29.TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED58.2013 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE3D PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P30.TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED58.2013 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE4H PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P31.TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED58.2013 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE5H PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P32.COPY OF THE MEMO DATED58.2013 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE6H PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P33.TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED58.2013 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE7H PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P34.TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED58.2013 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE8H PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P35.TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED58.2013 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE9H PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P36.TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED58.2013 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE10H PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P37.TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED58.2013 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE11H PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P38.TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED58.2013 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE12H PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P39.TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED58.2013 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE13H PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P40.TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED58.2013 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE14H PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: --------------------- EXHIBIT R1(A): TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED2706.2013. EXHIBIT R1(B): TRUE COPIES OF THE ANSWERS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE STANDING COMMITTEE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE. ln K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
------------------------------------------ W.P.(C)Nos.24889 & 24895 of 2013 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of January, 2014 JUDGMENT
Both the above writ petitions challenge the cancellation of the 5th Semester Examination attended by the petitioners herein in 2013. Twenty Eight petitioners in the writ petitions, were 6th Semester B.A. Degree students of English Language and Literature. In the 6th Semester, the students were to appear in six papers and the dispute is with respect to one particular paper, being the elective course, which in case of all the petitioners was 'Translation Studies'. The valuation was conducted in a centralized camp and one of the examiners being an Assistant Professor in the Department of English of the Mahatma Gandhi University College, Thiruvananthapuram, noticed alarming similarities in the translations attempted by certain students, all of whom were within the register numbers 336001 to 336045. The said Evaluator communicated to the Controller of Examinations her suspicions regarding alleged mal-practice in the examinations; by Ext.P25. W.P.(c).Nos.24889 & 24895 of 2013 :
2. :
2. A reading of Ext.P25 indicates that its author had in total examined 150 papers in 'Translation Studies' being that of register Nos.336001 to 336150. Out of this, the similarities with respect to the answers were noticed in the above indicated 45 papers. Ext.P25 also pointedly referred to the final question in which the students were required to translate passages from English to Malayalam. According to the Evaluator, the striking similarities in the answers raised a suspicion of malpractice committed in the examinations.
3. In fact, on complaint being raised by one of the Evaluators, both the Chairman of the Examination as also the Chief Examiner of the Centralized Valuation Camp were directed to submit reports. The Chairman of the Examination by Ext.P23 reported that, though similarity in mistakes committed are observed and translation passages also show certain similarities, according to him, no serious malpractice can be inferred. However, Ext.P24 report of the Chief Examiner supported the Evaluator's stand. Ext.P24 spoke about similarities, with pointed references to some of the register numbers in which papers startling similarities were detected. W.P.(c).Nos.24889 & 24895 of 2013 :
3. :
4. The Controller of Examinations being satisfied of the malpractice, referred the matter to the Standing Committee of Examinations, which in turn referred it to the Standing Committee of the Syndicate, on Students Discipline. The Standing Committee of the Syndicate on Examinations considered reports Exts.P23 to P25 and recommended that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee of the Syndicate on Students Discipline. Notices were issued to the students for appearing before the Standing Committee on Students Discipline; copies of some of which are produced in both the writ petitions. The students, in fact, were directed to be present along with their parents, before the Standing Committee of the Syndicate and were then informed of the malpractice committed, which was denied by the students.
5. The Standing Committee on Students Discipline considered the issue of malpractice reported and found that 29 students coming within the 45 students appearing from one particular college had resorted to the said malpractice, which was discernible from the similarity in answers in the examination papers of the elective subject. It was also recommended that the W.P.(c).Nos.24889 & 24895 of 2013 :
4. : Examinations of April 2013, written by the above 29 candidates be cancelled and all the said 29 candidates be debarred from appearing in the University Examinations till March-April, 2014. The Syndicate of the University considered the recommendations and approved the same as is evident from Ext.P26. The students allege non-compliance of principles of natural justice as also violation of statutory mandate in the Kerala University First Statutes, 1979.
6. It has to be first noticed that there is no ground of mala fides raised in both the writ petitions against any of the teachers or the members of the Syndicate of the Standing Committee. The complaint itself originated from the valuation camp, that too from an Evaluator who had examined 150 papers in the subject 'Translation Studies'. The similarity in answer papers were noticed in 45 papers all of which were of candidates appearing from one particular college, the 4th respondent. The Controller of Examinations on being communicated the suspicion by the Examiner had entrusted the Chairman of the Examination as also the Chief Examiner to look into the issue. The Chief Examiner after having examined the answer papers agreed with W.P.(c).Nos.24889 & 24895 of 2013 :
5. : the complaint given by the Evaluator. Even the Chairman of examinations found glaring similarities in the answer papers; but however, chose to report that they do not amount to serious malpractices.
7. It is on consideration of the reports filed by the Examiners as also after hearing the students that the Standing Committee on Students Discipline arrived at the findings in Ext.P21. On a reading of the findings in Ext.P22, it is discernible that the Standing Committee on Examinations, out of the 45 students, picked 29 students in whose examination papers, the similarities were glaring and obvious and the allegation of malpractice stood confirmed. This would definitely indicate that there was a meticulous examination by the Standing Committee on Students Discipline regarding the malpractice alleged.
8. The answer papers have been produced by the petitioners and the learned counsel invited this Court to look into such answer papers. This Court, however, restrains itself from doing so, since it is not for this Court to enter into the valuation of the answer papers or pick out similarities or dissimilarities in the answers, especially in the context of this Court being not W.P.(c).Nos.24889 & 24895 of 2013 :
6. : equipped to look at the language or the translations employed by the students. Nor is this Court expected to make such a roving enquiry in the circumscribed jurisdiction of judicial review. Looking at Ext.P22 and on the strength of the findings that, there has been a meticulous examination of the answer papers, before confirming the malpractice alleged, this Court is not persuaded to interfere with the decision of the Standing Committee on Student Discipline in any manner.
9. The contention of the petitioners regarding statutory violation is the lack of opportunity granted to them by the Syndicate before the penalty was imposed. The petitioners rely on the duties of the Syndicate dealt with in Chapter-VI; specifically the powers and duties as enumerated in clause (xxiv) of Statute 3, the proviso of which requires an opportunity to the candidate in the context of the University intending to award any of the penalties mentioned in the said clause. In the instant case, the learned Standing Counsel for the University would submit that the Syndicate has not imposed the penalty provided in the said clause, since the penalty provided as per the statutes is debarring from examinations for one or more years and herein W.P.(c).Nos.24889 & 24895 of 2013 :
7. : the penalty was confined to one chance in the supplementary examinations. The submission of the University is that the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Students Discipline itself was to impose a penalty lesser than that provided in clause(xxiv) and hence, the mandate of an opportunity does not at all arise. In any event, this Court is not persuaded to answer the said question, in the context of the facts coming to fore. If the decision of the Syndicate is set aside on that respect alone, then necessarily, the issue would have to be referred back to the Syndicate, which would only result in further heart-burn to the students and the same would merely be reduced to an empty formality.
10. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would place reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1549 of 2013 dated 08.11.2013 wherein, it is submitted, in a similar instance, the Division Bench had confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge confining the cancellation to the subject, in which, malpractice was detected.
11. The learned Standing Counsel for the University would quickly point out that the judgment cited, cannot be taken as a W.P.(c).Nos.24889 & 24895 of 2013 :
8. : precedent because it was rendered only on the facts revealed in the said case. It is also specifically pointed out that the malpractice alleged in the said case was with respect to two multiple choice questions(MCQ) being answered wrongly and in an identical fashion by 28 students appearing from one centre.
12. True, the decision cited proceeded on facts and cannot be considered to be a binding precedent. In exercising discretion this Court has to look at the facts coming to fore in the present writ petition. It is to be noticed that despite there being an allegation of mass copying in one particular subject that too by students sitting at one particular examination centre, the University had not attempted to verify whether there was any such instance in the other papers also. In the context of there being no allegation as to copying or a malpractice of any other nature in the other papers, the cancellation of the entire 6th Semester examinations in which the students appeared, would not be justified. In such circumstance, this Court is of the opinion that the penalty imposed on the students in the instant case also, on facts, can be confined to the subject in which the malpractice was detected. The decision of the Syndicate revealed W.P.(c).Nos.24889 & 24895 of 2013 :
9. : in Ext.P26, resolving to approve the minutes of the Standing Committee on Students Discipline in Item No.22.83 of Ext.P22, is modified to the extent of cancelling the 6th Semester examination of the students in the elective subject; 'Translation Studies', alone. The University shall declare the results of the students in all other subjects of the 6th Semester in which the students/petitioners appeared in April, 2013. The writ petitions are disposed of as above. No order as to costs. Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE. ln