BENCH AT JAIPUR v. The Unfair Means Enquiry Committee, Rajasthan

Judgment

1. The Unfair Means Enquiry Committee, Rajasthan University Of Health Sciences, Address At Kumbha Marg, Sector-18, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur (Raj.) 302033

2. The Principal, Mahatma Gandhi College Of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Address At Isi-15A, Riico Institutional Area, Sitapura, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Raj.) 303022

3. The Vice-Chancellor, Mahatma Gandhi College Of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Address At Isi-15A, Riico Institutional Area, Sitapura, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Raj.) 303022

4. The Center Superintendent, Mahatma Gandhi College Of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Address At Isi-15A, Riico Institutional Area, Sitapura, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Raj.) 303022 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr.Sahil Jain with Ms.Vidhi Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr.Yash Joshi JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 30/05/2025

1. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner with the following prayer:- “In view of the above narrated facts, the petitioner prays for the following relief(s): [2025:RJ-JP:22710] (2 of 6) [CW-18245/2024] (I) Any an appropriate writ, order or direction this Hon’ble Court be pleased to set aside and quash the order passed by the Unfair-Means Enquiry Committee dated 24.10.2024 (Annexure-1). (II) By an appropriate order this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to appear in future examinations and restore their academic standing without any prejudice. (III) By an appropriate order this Hon’ble Court be pleased to remand back the matter for further investigation. (IV) Any other order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be pleased in favour of the petitioner.”

2. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 24.10.2024 passed by the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences by which the examination of the petitioner, i.e., B. Pharmacy-II Semester End Examination in May, 2024 has been cancelled and he has been debarred for one subsequent examination, if the examination is held once a year or two subsequent examinations, if the examination is held twice a year.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while undertaking the aforesaid examination, the petitioner was allegedly caught, while allowing the other student to copy from his answer-sheets. Counsel submits that a detailed explanation to the aforesaid allegation was furnished by the petitioner that he did not [2025:RJ-JP:22710] (3 of 6) [CW-18245/2024] bring any material to keep with him and he did not allow any student to copy from his answer-sheet, if someone else, sitting behind him was copying his answers, then he cannot be blamed for the alleged action of the fellow student. Counsel submits that when the matter was taken up by the Unfairmeans Enquiry Committee, the explanation furnished by the petitioner was not taken into consideration and straightaway, the punishment order has been passed which has resulted in violation of the principles of natural justice, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-University opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner’s conduct i.e., allowing the other students to copy from his answer-sheets amounts to the use of unfair means. Counsel submits that the answer-sheets of both the students were examined by the subject Expert and almost all the answers were matching identical. Counsel submits that on the basis of the opinion of the subject Expert, the order impugned has been passed which warrants no interference of this Court and the instant writ petition is liable to be rejected.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- (I) Director (Studies), Dr.Ambedkar Nutrition & Catering Technology, Chandigarh & Ors. Vs. Vaibhhav Singh Chauhan reported in (2009) 1 SCC 59. (II) Neeraj Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2016 (4) RLW 2753 (Raj.). [2025:RJ-JP:22710] (4 of 6) [CW-18245/2024] (III) Jyoti Vs. RUHS & Ors. reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Raj

5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.

6. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner was undertaking examination of B. Pharmacy-II Semester End Sem Examination in May, 2024 Patho Physiology-IV on 04.06.2024. During the course of examination, it was alleged that some unfair means were used by him at the examination centre, wherein it was alleged that he was showing his copy to the students sitting behind him and despite of instructing him to sit straight and cover his copy, still he showed the same to the other student. A detailed explanation to the aforesaid allegation was submitted by the petitioner during the course of aforesaid process which read as under:- I undertake that the statement has been given by me under no pressure or fear.

1. Do you agree with the report of the Invigilators/ Flying Squad/ Observer/ Center Superintendent made against you?

2. If you agree with the report, then: Yes/ No Yes (a) Why did your bring the material referred to in the above report? I did not bring any material (b) Did you make any use of it? (c) What explanation have you to offer for your misconduct/ disorderly conduct as mentioned in the report? (d) Have any other thing to say, by way of self-defense or clarification? I didn’t make any use of it I was doing my paper somebody see in my copy from right side I didn’t do anything I didn’t do anything someone see beside me, he is cheater not I

3. If you do not agree with the report then give your explanation, if any, in your defense against the report of the I do not agree with the report no body will help me for this [2025:RJ-JP:22710] (5 of 6) [CW-18245/2024] Invigilator/ Flying Squad/ Observer/ Center Superintendent.

7. The explanation furnished by the petitioner indicates that he has not admitted the allegations levelled against him rather his explanation was that he did not allow any candidate/student to cheat from his answer-sheet and if someone, sitting behind him has seen the answers, then he is not liable for the same.

8. When the matter was examined by the Unfair Means Enquiry Committee, no notice of the aforesaid explanation was taken into consideration and the order impugned has been passed simply on the basis of the opinion of subject Expert showing that the answers attempted by the petitioner and the other student were matching and identical to each other.

9. It is settled proposition of law that before passing any adverse order against a person, it is bounden duty of the authorities concerned to consider the reply/ defence submitted by him. However, in the instant case, the explanation furnished by the petitioner was not considered and straightaway, the order impugned has been passed which has violated the principles of natural justice and thus, on this count alone, the impugned order passed by the respondents is not liable to be sustained and is liable to be and is hereby quashed and set-aside. The petitioner is allowed to appear in the forthcoming due examinations, which are scheduled to be held from 31.05.2025 and to appear in the remaining due examination.

10. The judgments cited by counsel for the respondents are not applicable in the facts and circumstance of the present case. [2025:RJ-JP:22710] (6 of 6) [CW-18245/2024]

11. Needless to observe, the respondents would pass a fresh order after taking into account the explanation furnished by the petitioner strictly in accordance with law.

12. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Aayush Sharma /384 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J