' The petitioner challenges the orders of the Disciplinary as well as the Appellate Committees by which he had been disqualified for four examinations from Autumns 1980 to Spring 1982, under rules 8 (1) and 8 (2), for using unfair means in the paper of Chemistry.
2. The petitioner was served a charge-sheet to which he submitted a written reply. He was also heard by the Committee at length. He confined his oral submissions to what he had already stated in the written reply. The Committee on its own examined the case very thoroughly. It got explanations from the concerned, officials and the sub-examiner. The head examiner had gone away to Nigeria and, therefore, he could not be examined. The Committee, therefore, got the signatures/initials of the head examiner and examiner compared with those on the answer-book and found that those found on the amended marks differed from the originals.
3. The Committee further found that the '13' marks had been unauthorisedly changed to bring up to the total to 28, on basis of two parts of two questions which had been attempted later, in different ink. The Committee thus not only heard the petitioner, before deciding the case but also in review and did apply its mind well to see that no injustice is done to the petitioner.
4. The finding given by the Disciplinary Committee was of fact and A normally this Court would not interfere with the same. However, just to see that if any injustice might have been done to the petitioner, I had sent for the record. The Chemistry answer-book produced by the respondent shows that originally the petitioner was awarded 13 marks. Subsequently, an amended award list was issued to bring up the total of the same answer-book to 28. According to the record the amended award was received in the office of the respondent after the previous listed marks had been incorporated in the relevant papers. It is also clear that either all the examiner, the head examiner and the student, were party to the action or the student had colluded with the officials to achieve his objective. It is thereby that the additional parts of the answers were recorded afresh in the hand of candidate to justify the additional marks.
5. A perusal of the first page of the answer book would show that the original total of '13' marks was made up as under :- ' Answer to question No, 2 =10 ' Answer to question No, 4 = 2 ' Answer to question No, 10- 1 Total : =13 ' Answers to questions 1 and 7 were awarded Zero mark. Later, on a vacant space at page 15, the petitioner attempted (E) part of question No, 1, in a different ink. This part was awarded 8 marks. The fact that the part (a) was written after the first marking is also supported by the fact that the marks '10' of previous answer are on the portion marked out for (a.).
6. Similarly question No, 3 part (j11) is attempted in a different ink at page 13 in the short space left at the end of question No, 10 and given 8 marks. This way, it has been squeezed in, is a proof of the fact that it was done after the first marking. The marks of question No, 4 have not been counted in the revised award.
7. This conclusion is supported further by the fact that whereas the caption of all the questions were written originally by a broad marker, those of the two parts are written in pen and in a different ink. Marking of question No, 2 has also been changed from 10 to 9 and of 7 from zero to 2 to give an idea of general pattern of changes in remarking.
8. In view of the above, it is quite clear that marks of answers to questions 1 and 3 have been given after adding answers subsequently, without any authority or justification. Adding up of 2 marks for question No, 7 is also without authority. There can, therefore, be no objection, in fact or law, against the impugned orders. Consequently there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed in limine.