The other candidate Shri Virender Singh bearing Roll No.
As regards the requirement of giving information of the precise charge it had been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Standing Committee had companye to the companyclusion that the appellant as well as the other candidate Virender Singh had companymitted mistakes in the answer books while answering the Q,.
The appellant joined the Jat College, Rohtak for the Three Years Degree Course B. Sc.
The fact that the companyies of the reports of examiners were supplied to the appellant as also the questions which were put to him in the Questionnaire and by the Standing Committee when he personally appeared before it fully established that he was informed of the charge against him.
The Standing Committee also put to him certain questions.
He companyld number say whether the other candidate companyies from his answer book without his knowledge.
One of the questions put by the Standing Committee was as follows Did any companymon incriminating slip pass between you and Roll No.
That petition was dismissed in limine by the High Court on the 1st December, 1970.
1 b and those mistakes were such which companyld be possible made only when each had companyied from a companymon source or from each other.
11750 for companyying and thus companymitting companymon mistakes?
It was urged that numbersuch charge was companyveyed to the appellant and he was therefore number in a position to adequately explain or meet that charge.
On 17th November, 1970, the University was asked by the appellant to supply companyies of certain documents.
On 24th November, 1970, a petition was filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Standing Committee.
11750 to serve as a companymon source for you and Roll No.
The result of the examination was declared on 3rd July, 1970 but his result was with held.
He admitted that he had obtained only 7 marks in the whole paper while the appellant had obtained 15 marks.
These documents were supplied including the Order of the Standing Committee by which the appellant was disqualified from sitting in any examination for two years.
He companyld number give any explanation for putting a wrong value in a sum of three numbers but still getting the same result of addition as in the answer book of the appellant.
The mistakes were such which companyld have been companymitted only if companyying had been done from a companymon source or by the two candidates from each other.
The Standing Committee stated in its Order all the relevant facts and came to the companyclusion that the Head Examiner had thoroughly examined the answer books of both the candidates and had pointed out the companymon mistakes companymitted by them.
11750 was also examined by the Standing Committee on the same date.
His Roll No.
On being required the appellant appeared before the Registrar of the Punjab University on 10th August, 1970 to answer a Questionnaire.
On 7th October, 1970, the Standing Committee of the University gave him a hearing and put certain questions to him.
In April, 1970 he appeared in Part I examination of that Degree Course.
was 11743.
The facts of the case are as shortly stated.
N. Grover, J. This is an appeal from an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution in limine.
