TMI Blog1976 (4) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ggrieved by the majority judgment of the High Court, the Punjab University, Chandigarh, has filed these appeals by a certificate granted by the High Court on the ground that the appeals involve a substantial question of law of general importance which requires to be determined by this Court. The respondents to these appeals were detected in the use of unfair means by the supervisory staff at different examinations held by the Punjab University. The Deputy Registrar of the University issued notices to the respondents calling upon them to submit their replies to a questionnaire. Respondents denied having used unfair means in the examinations but their explanation having been found to be unsatisfactory, the charges were referred for inquiry and decision to the Standing Committee which was appointed to deal with cases of misconduct and use of unfair means at the University examinations. The Standing Committee consisted of Shri G. L. Chopra, a retired Judge of the High Court, Shri Ajmer Singh, an advocate who was formerly a Minister of the Punjab Government, and Shri Jagjit Singh, the Registrar of the University. The Standing Committee was appointed by the Syndicate of the Univers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 31 (2) enumerates matters regarding which regulations can be made and they include the conduct of students, the procedure to be followed at meetings of the Senate, Syndicate and Faculties and the quorum of members to be required for the transaction of business. Acting under the power conferred by section 31, the Senate of the Punjab University framed regulations in consultation with the Government, which include regulations relating to the use of unfair means in examinations. These regulations are contained in Chapter II of the Punjab University Calendar, 1973, Volume II. The decision of these appeals turns on the construction and meaning of regulations 31 and 32.1 of Chapter II which read thus:- 31. The Syndicate shall appoint annually a Standing Committee to deal with cases of the alleged misconduct and use of unfair means in connection with examination; 32.1. When the Committee is unanimous, its decision shall be final except as provided in 32.2. If the Committee is not unanimous the matter shall be referred to the Vice-Chancellor who shall either decide the matter himself or refer it to the Syndicate for decision . The constitution of the Standing Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anding Committee for the time being to dispose of any business which comes before it. Great reliance was placed by the respondents both in the High Court and before us on Regulation 32.1 which we have set out above, in support of the contention that the decision of the Standing Committee was without jurisdiction since all the members of the Committee had not participated in the various decisions. By Regulation 32.1, if the Standing Committee is unanimous in its decision, the decision is final except as provided in Regulation 32.2; if the committee is not unanimous, the matter has to be referred to the Vice-Chancellor who can either decide the matter himself or refer it to the Syndicate for its decision. It is urged on behalf of the respondents that the possible dissent of the 3rd member, were he present, would have necessitated a reference to the Vice-Chancellor who might not agree with the majority opinion, which shows that no sanctity can attach to a decision rendered by less than the whole body of 3 members of the Standing Committee. This argument is purely hypothetical and besides, it overlooks that the fixation of quorum for the meetings of a committee does not preclude all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their decision is final. If they differ, the matter has to be referred to the Vice-Chancellor. Thus, the fixation of quorum neither makes Regulation 32.1 a dead letter nor does it affect its application or utility. With respect, we are unable to appreciate the reasoning of the majority that The manner in which Regulation 32.1 has been framed leaves no doubt that the consideration of the question of students' misconduct and the use of unfair means in examination by them has been placed at a high pedestal and that therefore there is no escape from the conclusion that the consideration of the case of a student against whom there are allegations of misconduct or of use unfair means in an examination, has to be by all the members of the Standing Committee and not by some of them and that any decision of the Syndicate to the contrary would he violative of the letter and spirit of Regulation 32.1. The fixation of quorum by the Syndicate violates neither the letter nor the spirit of that Regulation. The majority Judges were therefore in error in holding that Regulation 32.1 clearly negatives the fixation of a quorum and makes it incumbent that the decision must be taken by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
