Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
R.DEVDAS
Donthi Saatvik Reddy S/o Donthi Srinath Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Central Board of Secondary Education, Bengaluru – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The petitioner, a Class XII student is before this Court faced with an order passed by the Central Board of Secondary Education (for short, CBSE) imposing penalty under category-III i.e., cancellation of current as well as next years examinations in all subjects.
2. On the first day of examination of Physical Education, about 25 minutes after the commencement of the examination, the Invigilator noticed the mobile phone in the petitioner’s hip pocket and the Invigilator reported the matter to the Observer at the centre. Immediately, the mobile phone was seized and a fresh set of question paper and answer script was given to the petitioner to complete the examination. The petitioner hardly got about 1 hour 45 minutes to complete the paper, since the rest of the time was spent on enquiry, checking and other formalities. The petitioner was permitted to write the other papers. However, after the conclusion of the examinations, the petitioner was called for an enquiry on 09.04.2025. The petitioner explained to the committee that the petitioner arrived very late to the examination centre and in a hurry, he went into the class room, unmindful of the fact that the mobile phone was
Penalties imposed without proof of foul intent in educational assessments are unjust; prior judicial decisions support providing benefit of doubt to students in similar circumstances.
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to examination Bye-Laws and principles of natural justice for fair assessment in academic settings.
A writ petition may be dismissed if filed after an unreasonable delay without satisfactory explanation and involves disputed questions of fact not suitable for writ jurisdiction.
The court upheld the university's decision to cancel examinations due to proven use of unfair means, affirming that due process was followed, according to the governing ordinance.
Imposition of minor penalty must adhere to the principles of natural justice and consider the employee's reply, as per Rule 16 of CCA Rules, 1966 and legal precedents.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
