AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(Per Abasaheb D. Shinde, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the Writ Petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.
By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking following main reliefs :
"B) By way of appropriate Writ, Order or directions in the like nature, the impugned order dated 28/03/2026 passed by the Director, Examination and Evaluation Board of the North Maharashtra University, Jalgaon, thereby cancelling the performance of the petitioner in the Examination of B. Pharm conducted in October / November 2015, may kindly be quashed and set aside.
C) By way of appropriate Writ, Order or directions in the like nature, the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 may kindly be directed to permit the petitioner to appear for the B.Pharm Final Year–Summer 2026 Examination (May / June 2026), which is commenced w.e.f. 04/05/2026."
The facts giving rise to the filing of this Writ Petition are that the petitioner is a student of B. Pharmacy course. He is taking education with respondent No. 5/ College. He has completed the first year and is now studying in the second year. The second year examination was conducted in the month of October-November 2025. On 15.12.2025, the petitioner appeared for the examination for the subject of Biopharmaceutics and Pharmacokinetics. On that day, the Flying Squad visited the examination center and found 14 chits with the Junior Invigilator viz., Rahulsingh Uttamsingh Khairnar. The same was reported to the university, and eventually, the matter was placed before respondent No. 3/ the Unfair Means Committee (hereinafter called as, 'the Committee') of the University. Consequently, the Committee issued show-cause notices on 11.03.2026 and 12.03.2026 to the College and the said Junior Invigilator, respectively, asking them to appear before the Committee on 18.03.2026.
The petitioner contends that he received a phone call on 17.03.2026 asking him to appear before the Committee on 18.03.2026. Accordingly, he appeared before the said Committee. The Director, Examination and Evaluation Board, by the impugned order dated 28.03.2026, cancelled the performance of the petitioner and further debarred him from appearing in the future examinations scheduled to be held in the month of May/June 2026.
It is further contended by the petitioner that pursuant to the impugned order, respondent No.2/University on 02.04.2026 issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner, directing him to appear before the Director, Examination and Evaluation board (hereinafter called as 'the Board') on 09.04.2026. He however, could not remain present on the said date as he belatedly received show-cause notice. However, on 09.04.2026, the Board upheld the impugned order dated 28.03.2026. The petitioner, therefore, has approached this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly the chits were not found with the petitioner, but the same were found with the Junior Invigilator. The Board while passing the impugned orders, failed to afford a sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner which is violative of Ordinance 9 (3) (b) (i) of the respondent/University. He, therefore, urged that both the impugned orders deserves to be quashed and set-aside.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 submits that the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have conducted the enquiry as per the prescribed procedure and the petitioner has admitted that he is involved in the malpractice. Under such circumstances, since the principles of natural justice have been complied with, no interference is called for in the impugned order.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for responding Nos. 2 to 5, learned AGP for respondent/State and have perused the record.
Prima-facie, we find that the so-called chits were not found with the petitioner, but were found with the Junior Invigilator viz., Rahulsingh Uttamsingh Khairnar, who, on 15.12.2025 has given a statement, that the said 14 chits were found in his pocket. The respondents, along with their affidavit in reply, have placed on record the said statement at Exh.R-2 (Page No.69). The respondents have also placed on record another statement purported to have been recorded on 02.03.2026 of the Junior Invigilator, stating that the said chits belongs to the petitioner. The Committee on the basis of the statement recorded on 02.03.2026, issued show-cause notice to the petitioner asking him to remain present before the Committee on 18.03.2026. The respondents contend that, on that date, the petitioner gave in writing that the chits belongs to him. A bare perusal of said document annexed at Exh.C (Page No.23) reveals that nothing could be gathered from it about the alleged admission given by the petitioner on 18.03.2026. We are, therefore, unable to persuade ourselves to accept the contention of the respondent Nos.2 to 5 that the petitioner admitted his involvement in the alleged malpractice.
So far as order dated 09.04.2026 passed by the Board is concerned, perusal of proceeding of the meeting would reveal that, the petitioner was not present. Respondent No.3, therefore, without hearing the petitioner has upheld the order dated 28.03.2026.
At this juncture, it would be apt to consider the relevant provision of Ordinance of respondent No. 2/ University which contemplates the procedure to be followed by the Committee before imposing the punishment for the use of unfair means which reads thus :
"10 Procedure of the Committee should be as under–
[i] The Controller of Examinations of the University /Principal of the College or Head of the Recognised Institution or the Officer authorised by them as the case may be shall inform the student concerned in writing of the act of unfair means alleged to have been committed by him/her should not be held as proved and the punishment stipulated in the show cause notice be imposed.
[ii] The student may appear before the Inquiry Committee on a day, time and place fixed for the meeting with written reply/explanation to the show cause notice served on him/her therein. The student himself herself only shall present his/her case before the Committee.
[iii] The documents that are being taken into consideration or are to be relied upon for the purpose of providing charge/s against the student should be shown to him/her by the Inquiry Committee if the student presents himself/herself before the Committee. The evidence if any, should be recorded in the presence of delinquent.
[iv] Reasonable opportunity, including oral hearing, shall be given to the student in his/her defence before the Committee. The Committee shall consider the reply/explanation given by the student to the show cause notice before making final recommendation in the case.
[v] The Committee should follow the above procedure in the spirit of the principle of natural justice.
[vi] After serving a show cause notice, if the implicated student fails to appear before the Inquiry Committee on the day, time and place fixed for the meeting, the student may be given one more opportunity to appear before the Committee in his/her defence. Even after offering two chances if the student concerned fails to appear before the Committee the Committee shall take decision in his/her case in absentia on the basis of the available evidence/documents which shall be binding on the student concerned.
[vii] The Committee shall submit its report to the concerned competent authority alongwith its recommendations regarding punishment to be inflicted or otherwise."
The aforesaid provision explicitly makes it clear that before imposing punishment for the use of unfair means, the student needs to be given reasonable opportunity of hearing. In the case in hand, neither the show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner nor the so-called statements of the Junior Invigilator dated 15.12.2025 and 02.03.2026 were served upon the petitioner. It goes to show that the petitioner had no occasion to go through the said statements and offer his explanation. The fact remains that the invigilator gave the statement implicating the petitioner after a gap of almost three months, the same appears to be an afterthought. We, therefore, find that the action of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 thereby cancelling the performance of the petitioner and debarring him from appearing in the future examinations is without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing.
In our considered view, cancelling the performance of the petitioner in the examination and debarring him from appearing in future examinations have a serious consequence. It is trite law that before passing an order having civil consequences, the principle of audi alteram partem needs to be adhered to. Since, the impugned orders passed by the respondents are in gross violation of principles of natural justice, the same are unsustainable and therefore, are liable to be quashed and set-aside.
Before parting with this judgment, we may observe that this Court by order dated 07.05.2026, by way of Ad-interim relief, has permitted the petitioner to appear for the examination held in the month of May/June 2026 and directed that the result of the petitioner shall not be declared without permission of this Court. Since, we are inclined to allow the Writ Petition, the result of the petitioner for the said examination deserves to be declared.
In the result, we pass the following order :
ORDER
The Writ Petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned orders dated 28.03.2026 and 09.04.2026 passed by the Director, Examination and Evaluation Board of the North Maharashtra University, Jalgaon thereby cancelling the performance of the petitioner in the Examination of B. Pharm conducted in October / November 2025 and debarring him from appearing in future examination are hereby quashed and set aside.
iii) We direct respondent No.2/university to declare the result of the petitioner for the examination held in the month of May /June 2026.
iv) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.