High Court · 2024
Legal Reasoning
(1) wp-702-2024.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 702 OF 2024ATHARVA ANIL KSHIRSAGARVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY ANDOTHERS...Mr. Vilas P. Savant, Advocate for the Petitioner.Mr. P. S. Patil, Addl. GP for Respondent No.1.Mr. K. P. Rodge h/f Mr. P. G. Rodge, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 4.… CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ. DATED : 30th JANUARY 2024.JUDGMENT (Per: S. G. Chapalgaonkar, J.):- 1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent ofthe parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage ofadmission.2.The petitioner approaches this Court under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India with following prayers:-“B.Issue writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or directionthereby quash and set aside the impugned office order dated11.12.2023 passed by respondent no.3 Associate Dean, College ofVeterinary and Animal Sciences, MAFSU, Parbhani and for thatpurpose issue necessary orders.C.Be please held and declare that, the provisions of MAFSUacademic regulations 2016, Rule No. 19(19) examination andevaluation, Rule No.22(4) Promotion and Rule No.26(6)(2) ofUnfair means are unconstitutional and causing injustice withstudents and therefore required to be quash and direct therespondent university to modify those provisions and for thatpurpose issue necessary orders. D.Issue writ of mandamus or any other writ, order ordirection in the nature of writ of mandamus, thereby direct therespondent No.2 to consider and decide the application/ appealsubmitted by petitioner dated 28.12.2023 and recall the (2) wp-702-2024.odtimpugned order dated 11.12.2023 passed by respondent no.3 andfor that purpose issue necessary orders.E.Issue writ of mandamus or any other writ, order ordirection in the nature of writ of mandamus, thereby direct therespondent no.2 & 3 to declare the result of second year andfurther allow the petitioner to appear for compartmentexamination of ensuring session and for that purpose issuenecessary orders.”3.The petitioner contends that he is a student and admitted tothe College of Veterinary and Animal Science, MAFSU, Parbhani in theacademic year 2021-2022 through merit position in NEET examination.The petitioner passed 1st year of Bachelor of Veterinary Science andAnimal Husbandry (B.V. Sci. and A.H.) course. The petitioner appearedfor second year examination of academic year 2022-2023 in the month ofDecember 2023. On 09.12.2023, he attended the written examination inthe subject of Animal Genetics and Breeding - IAGB. While he was inthe process of writing his paper, his answer sheet was seized by theInvigilator with allegation of malpractice. The petitioner received theimpugned communication dated 11.12.2023 containing the order passedby the Associate Dean of the College declaring him to be failed in thesubject of Animal Genetics further debarring him from appearing in thecompartmental examination of ensuing session. The petitioner maderepresentation in the form of appeal to the University, however, thesame remained undecided. According to the petitioner, he has beensubjected to double punishment. Firstly, he is declared as failed in thesubject of Animal Genetics, secondly, he is deprived from appearing inthe compartmental examination, which is contrary to Article 14 and 21of the Constitution of India. The petitioner contends that the relevantRules enabling double punishment are unconstitutional. The Actiontaken against the petitioner relying upon such Rules is invalid andliable to be quashed and set aside.
Legal Reasoning
(3) wp-702-2024.odt4.The respondent-University filed affidavit-in-reply andjustified the action taken against the petitioner on the ground that thepetitioner malpracticed during the conduct of the written examination.The enquiry was conducted. The petitioner was given due opportunityto put up his stand and on the basis of the findings of the enquiry, thepetitioner has been dealt with in accordance with the relevant AcademicRegulations framed by the University in consonance with theVeterinary Council of India – Minimum Standards of VeterinaryEducation – Degree Course (B.V.Sc. & A.H.) Regulations, 2016.5.Mr. Savant, learned Advocate appearing for the petitionervehemently submits that the petitioner has been wrongly punished. Heis innocent student and victim of the wrong committed by some otherstudents. He would submit that during the enquiry the petitionertendered his explanation. Similarly, the material alleged to have beenfound in possession of the petitioner was unconcerned with the subjectfor which he was undergoing the examination. The concerned Professorhas certified the said fact after comparing the question paper and thematerial found in possession of the petitioner. Mr. Savant would inviteattention of this Court to the relevant Regulations to contend thatRegulations, 2016 enables the student to appear for compartmentexamination, even if he fails in two subjects and on clearance of thosesubjects, he is entitled to sit in next class. As such, the provision ismade to avoid the loss of Academic Year of the student, who failed toclear the subject. He would further invite attention of this Court to theRule 22(4) that enables the student to continue his studies in the nexthigher class and clear backlog through compartment examination. Hewould, therefore, submit that the petitioner is subjected to dualpunishment under the impugned order i.e. declaration as failed in theconcerned subject and secondly, prohibition from appearing thecompartment examination, which would result in loss of Academic Year. (4) wp-702-2024.odtHe would submit that Rule 26(6) provides for such punishment in casestudent is held guilty of charge of use of unfair means duringexamination. As such, provision is arbitrary and irrational. No personcan be condemned twice for one and same wrong.6.Mr. Rodge, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent-University submits that since the petitioner was found adopting unfairmeans during the course of examination, the report of malpractice wasmade by the Invigilator. Consequently, petitioner was subjected toinquiry in accordance with law. Mr. Rodge while repelling submissionsregarding unreasonableness of enabling provisions of regulation underthe caption of “unfair means”, submits that the student failed inexamination cannot be equated with the student who has beenpunished for unfair means. The student who failed in examination isgiven one more opportunity to clear the subject through compartmentexamination. However, the student who is punished for adopting unfairmeans is prohibited from appearing in the compartment examination ofensuing session. There is rational behind providing the punishment forunfair means. To buttress his submissions he would rely upon theobservations of the Supreme Court of India in case of Yogesh PariharVs. Delhi Technological University and Others1 to contend that theintegrity of the educational system has to be infallible to achieve theprogress of the country. The student adopting unfair means in theexamination required to be dealt with iron arm.7.We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf ofthe respective parties. We have perused the relevant record tenderedinto service. Apparently, the petitioner was appearing in 2nd yearannual examination of B.V. Sc. & A.H. course. On 09.01.2023 while hewas attending examination in the subject of Animal Genetics, theInvigilator seized written material from the pocket of the petitioner.12022 SCC OnLine Del 4614. (5) wp-702-2024.odtAccordingly a report was made to Associate Dean. The enquiry was setup. The petitioner was given opportunity to make his representation.The statements of the Invigilators were recorded. On conclusion, reportof enquiry came to be submitted. The enquiry report is indicative of thefact that the written material was seized from the pocket of thepetitioner. On the basis of the report of the enquiry, the petitioner wasdeclared as failed in the subject of Animal Genetics with furtherdirection making him ineligible for appearing in the compartmentexamination of ensuing session vide MAFSU Academic Regulations forB.V.Sc. & A.H. degree course. 8.As far as the factual matrix of the matter is concerned, weare not inclined to delve into the arguments submitted on behalf of thepetitioner that the material found does not pertain to the subject forwhich he was appearing in the examination. We have noted that boththe Invigilators have stated that the chit was seized from the studentand he was found attempting unfair means during the conduct ofexamination. We do not find any reason to interfere in the conclusiondrawn after enquiry conducted by the University.9.The main thrust of the contention on behalf of the petitioneris that the petitioner has been subjected to dual punishment quotingRule 26(6) of the Regulation, 2016, which deals with the unfair means.The relevant sub-clause (6) of Rule 26 states as under:-“26(6).If the Associate Dean of the college holds that thestudent is guilty of the charge of preparation, attempt, abetment oractual use of unfair means, he/she shall award punishment to suchstudent as per details given below:Sr.No.ExaminationPunishment1Internal AssessmentThe student shall be given zero (0) mark in theparticular assessment. He/she shall be eligible toappear in Annual Board examination of theresepctive papers of subject. (6) wp-702-2024.odt2Annual Examination (theory or practical)The student shall be declared to have failed in theconcerned subject. He/she will not be eligible toappear in the compartmental examination ofensuing session.3Compartmental examination (theory or practical)The student shall be declared to have failed in theconcerned subject & reverted to the class from wherehe/she was conditionally allowed promotion.10. The aforesaid clause stipulates that the student found guilty ofcharge of misconduct can be awarded punishment of declaration to havefailed and prohibition from appearing compartmental examination ofensuing session. Mr. Savant by inviting attention of this Court to Rule19(19) alongwith Rule 24(4) submits that the provision is made forcompartmental examination and candidate is allowed to provisionallyseat in the next class, even though he failed in two subjects and onclearance of backlog, the candidate is entitled to continue his studies innext professional year. However, the candidate held guilty under Rule26 is made liable to dual punishment i.e. failure in relevant subjects, soalso prohibition from appearing in the compartmental examination,which ultimately results into loss of Academic Year. 11.We have given anxious consideration to the aforesaidsubmissions. What we find from the Regulations is that the studentwho failed in examination is treated differently than the student, whohas been declared failed for adopting unfair means during the conductof examination. Apparently, the student who failed to secure requisitepassing marks cannot be treated at par with the student sufferedpunishment on account of unfair means. There is rational behindproviding the stringent punishment to student found guilty ofmalpractices during examination i.e. declaring him failed in theconcerned subject with prohibition to appear in the compartmentexamination. The student from the first category is merely failed toachieve requisite merit position due to deficit performance in theexamination, whereas the student who is dealt under Rule 26 for unfair (7) wp-702-2024.odtmeans suffers punishment for scandalizing the process of examination.We do not find any substance in the contention of the petitioner that hehas been subjected to double punishment. The University Regulationsare framed based on universal system regarding conduct ofexamination. The punishment provided for unfair means has to bedeterrent. If the student declared as failed in the subject whileattempting unfair means in the examination and further debarred fromappearing in the ensuing session cannot be branded as doublepunishment. In fact, it is a part of one and the same punishment thatstudent has to suffer for his misconduct. At this stage, it would beapposite to refer to the observations of the Supreme Court of India incase of Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Hotel Management, Nutritionand Catering Technology Vs. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan2, whichreads thus:-“Copying and cheating in examinations is like Plague. It is apandemic which can ruin society and the educational system ofany country. If the same is left unchecked or if leniency is shown,the same can have a deleterious effect. For any country's progress,the integrity of the educational system has to be infallible.Whether it is paper setters maintaining utmost confidentiality,students not cheating, invigilators being vigilant, examinersdoing their job with utmost alacrity knowing that the future ofstudents is in their hands, Universities and colleges nottampering with results - the conduct of all stakeholders has toreflect commitment and also be unblemished”12.The aforesaid observations clearly stress on the need tomaintain purity and strict discipline in the conduct of examinationdeeming it necessary for overall progress of the Nation.13.If we look into the aforesaid observations of the SupremeCourt of India, it is difficult to accede with the contentions of thepetitioner that the punishment as provided under Regulations isarbitrary or exorbitant in any way. The relevant provisions appears tobe in tune with the objects sought to be achieved. The differentiation of2(2009) 1 SCC 59. (8) wp-702-2024.odtthe student, who failed in examination and the student whoseperformance is cancelled on account of adopting unfair means cannot betreated on equal platform. When it comes to unfair practice ormalpractice in the examination, the University or examinationauthority are required to be give some latitude in regulating functionsso as to maintain purity of the education system. The provisioncontained under the Regulations providing punishment for misconductare apparently reasonable and consonance with object sought to beachieved. In that view of the matter, we do not find any force in thecontention of the petitioner. Resultantly, Writ Petition fails and standsdismissed.14.Rule is discharged.(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI) JUDGE JUDGEDevendra/January-2024