9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Whether possession of written material during an examination constitutes the use of unfair means. - Whether the High Court correctly interpreted Rule 36.1(iv)(a) in the case. - Whether the possession of written material alone, without using it, constitutes a violation of examination rules. Analysis: Issue 1: The case involved a student who was found in possession of written material during an examination, leading to the cancellation of her 1993 examination results. The central issue was whether the mere possession of such material constitutes the use of unfair means at the examination. The Result Committee found the student guilty, leading to a writ petition challenging the decision. Issue 2: The High Court, in its judgment, considered whether the provisions of Rule 36.1(iv)(a) could be invoked when the candidate did not use the written material found in her possession. The High Court concluded that since the student had not copied despite having the material, the penalty imposed was not justified. The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the punishment and directing the declaration of the student's result. Issue 3: The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's interpretation, emphasizing that the possession of relevant material during an examination, as per Rule 36.1(iv)(a), constitutes the use of unfair means. The Court held that the recovery of incriminating material from the candidate's possession satisfies the rule's requirement, regardless of whether the material was used. The Court rejected the distinction between bona fide or mala fide possession, stating that the possession alone is sufficient to prove the charge of using unfair means. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the writ petition. The Court upheld the decision that possession of written material during an examination constitutes the use of unfair means, in line with the provisions of Rule 36.1(iv)(a).
|
