Miss Alka Hussain was a student who took her B. Com. Part I, Second Annual Examination of 1976 held in January 1977 under Roll No. 368. It was reported after she had appeared at the examination that her answer book in Paper III had been restitched after removing the original stitching pins and the ink used on the title cover of the answer book differed from that of the inner pages. A charge- sheet was given to her and she was accused having smuggled/replaced the inner pages of the answer book for the original ones. She gave a reply and throughout her stand was that the inner pages of the answer book were not in her hand and were not the ones which she had submitted in the examination hall at the conclusion of the paper, but that they were in a different hand and she did not know in whose hand it was. In elaborating her explanation she also stated that earlier in the examination hall she had reported about the loose stitches of the answer book but she was told that she need not bother. She also suspected of substitution and replacement of the answers with a view to deprive her of the benefit which she could have availed of as a good student in the subject in which she was taking the examination. The Disciplinary Committee examined her on two occasions, found that the replacement or the substitution of the inner contents of the answer books were established and were not any longer in issue and on that finding held the petitioner guilty of violating regulation No. 14 and disqualified her for using unfair means for a period of three years. She preferred an appeal but was unsuccessful. Hence this petition invoking the constitutional jurisdiction.
2. What the Disciplinary Committee has found established as a fact was at no stage in dispute for at the very first opportunity the petitioner stated that it was not her rendering of the answer and that it was a case of substitution. Therefore, there had to be a nexus, some material or fact to show that such substitution was either by the petitioner or at her instance or definitely for her benefit. It could be shown that substitution had been by her if it had been in her own handwriting. That is not the case. It could be for her benefit if it could be shown from the circumstances and so inferred that the answers rendered were far superior to those that she was ordinarily capable of rendering.
Whether the substitution was beneficial to her or no is a fact not so determined. The very plea of substitution admits that there has been a collusion between the University staff itself and the petitioner but there is no material to conclude such a collusion with any member of the staff and none whatsoever has been indicated.
3. The learned counsel for the University brought it to the notice that a number of such cases about 11 in number had been detected and by way of abundant caution, the petitioner had been allowed to go through and examine all the copy books coming from that centre with a view to locate her own original answers rendered at the examination and she was unable to locate one. Such an unsuccessful effort on the part of the petitioner would- have yielded any conclusion if there had been a finding that the substitution was either at her instance or for her benefit or that some other official was independently connected in the affair and it has to be noticed that without such collusion or involvement of the University staff the alleged substitution could not have taken place.
In the circumstances and on the facts admitted the action taken could not be taken and for the action taken the material is entirely lacking. It is a case of no evidence.
4. I accept this petition, hold that the disqualification imposed on her is without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The consequence of such a declaration will be that she will be permitted in accordance with the rules to take up her examination when next it is held. No order as to costs.