AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prashant Kumar Mishra, J
Petitioner has been visited with an order by the Unfair Means Committee of the respondent University debarring him to appear in the entire
examination of the year (current year) as well as in any examination conducted by the University in the next year.
The order has been passed as the petitioner was allegedly found to be using unfair means by means of some written material on his palm. When the
Invigilator caught the petitioner and recorded his statement he misbehaved and torn the paper containing his statement and this has been made the
basis for invoking Clause 6 of Regulation 10 of the University.
Clause 6 of Regulation 10 provides that any candidate found destroying/attempting to destroy material concerned with objectionable mater or the
answer booklet may be visited with penalty not allowing him to appear in the entire examination of that year as well as in any examination conducted
by the University in the next year.
The return field by the respondent/University does not disclose as to whether the petitioner was trying to destroy "" any material concerned with
objectionable matter or the answer booklet"" .
Moreover, petitioner was not heard before passing the order under Clause 6 of Regulation 10, therefore, for all the above stated reasons, I deem it
appropriate to allow the respondent/University to pass fresh order within a period of one week from today.
It is made clear that before passing fresh order, the petitioner shall be heard by the Unfair Means Committee. It is also made clear that the
impugned order shall not be acted upon unless and until the fresh order is passed by the University.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Certified copy today.