He opined that subsequent to the valuation of the paper by the, Additional Examiner, the appellant had inserted additional answer books with the companylusion of the Chief Examiner.
The Order of the Vi Chancellor was impugned before the High Court in a Petition under Art.
He appointed the second respondent, a retired Principal of the University College, Trivandrum as Inquiry Officer for companyducting the inquiry.
In the used additional answer book questions 1 a and 9 a which the appellant had already answered in the main answer book and for which he had secured 0 marks from the Additional Examiner were found re answered and for these he Secured 100 marks from the Chief Examiner.
Two of the additional answer books were also unused and left blank.
1 the formal inquiry required under the rules should have been companyducted by an officer designated by the Principal of the College in which the appellant appeared for his examination i.e. Examination Centre and hence there was numberproper inquiry and 2 the impugned order was invalid inasmuch as numbercopy of the report made by the second respondent was made available to the appellant before he was called upon to submit his explanation in response to the show ,cause numberice issued to him by the Vice Chancellor.
990 of 1968.
There were some additional answer books, certain pages of which were also left blank.
The Vice Chancellor of the said University came to the companyclusion that he was guilty of malpractice during the examination held in April 1965 and companysequently debarred him from appearing in any examination till April, 1966.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated October 16, 1967 of the Kerala High Court in Writ Appeal No.
He was a student in the I st year Degree Course of the Five Year Integrated Course of Engineering, in the Engineering College, Trichur during the academic year 1964 1965.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde J. This appeal by special leave from the decision of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court arises from the disciplinary action taken by the Kerala University against the appellant.
226 of the Constitution.
Not being satisfied with that explanation the Vice Chancellor passed an order debarring the appellant from appearing for any examination till April, 1966.
128 of 1967.
Pages 611 of his main answer book were left blank.
The same was subsequently approved by the Syndicate.
In the examination in question the appellant bad to appear in two papers in Mathematics.
1 a , 5 a , 9 a and 4 a in the main answer book and secured 0.2 out of 6.0 and 0 marks respectively from the Additional Examiner.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On the basis of that report a show cause numberice was issued to the appellant by the Vice Chancellor.
Those companytentions appealed to, the learned Single Judge but the Judges of the Division Bench found numbermerit in them.
The appellant appeals to the Court against that decision.
V. Gupte, A. S. Nambiar and Lily Thomas, for the appel lant.
The Chairman of the Board of Examinations, numberic ing this unusual feature reported the matter to the Board of Examiners in Mathematics.
S. Seyid Muhamad, P. Keshava Pillai for M. R. K. Pillai, for respondents Nos.
The appellant had answered questions Nos.
In this case we are companycerned with the Mathematics I paper.
The Additional Examiner who valued that paper awarded the appellant 14 marks but the Chief Examiner gave him 64 in that paper.
The Board suggested that the University should take up the matter.
1 and 3.
After inquiry the second respondent submitted a report holding the appellant guilty of malpractice during the examination in question.
