IMPORTANT POINT
Differentiation between students who fail in examination and those punished for adopting unfair means, emphasizing the need to maintain the integrity of the educational system and the reasonableness of the punishment for misconduct.

JUDGMENT :

S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.

2. The petitioner approaches this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with following prayers:

“(B) Issue writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction thereby quash and set aside the impugned office order dated 11.12.2023 passed by respondent no. 3 Associate Dean, College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, MAFSU, Parbhani and for that purpose issue necessary orders.

(C) Be please held and declare that, the provisions of MAFSU academic regulations 2016, Rule No. 19(19) examination and evaluation, Rule No. 22(4) Promotion and Rule No. 26(6)(2) of Unfair means are unconstitutional and causing injustice with students and therefore required to be quash and direct the respondent university to modify those provisions and for that purpose issue necessary orders.

(D) Issue writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus, thereby direct the respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the application/ appeal submitted by petitioner dated 28.12.2023 and recall the impugned order dated 11.12.2023 passed by respondent no. 3 and for that purpose issue necessary orders.

(E) Issue writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus, thereby direct the respondent no. 2 & 3 to declare the result of second year and further allow the petitioner to appear for compartment examination of ensuring session and for that purpose issue necessary orders.”

3. The petitioner contends that he is a student and admitted to the College of Veterinary and Animal Science, MAFSU, Parbhani in the academic year 2021-2022 through merit position in NEET examination. The petitioner passed 1st year of Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry (B.V. Sci. and A.H.) course. The petitioner appeared for second year examination of academic year 2022-2023 in the month of December 2023. On 09.12.2023, he attended the written examination in the subject of Animal Genetics and Breeding - IAGB. While he was in the process of writing his paper, his answer sheet was seized by the Invigilator with allegation of malpractice. The petitioner received the impugned communication dated 11.12.2023 containing the order passed by the Associate Dean of the College declaring him to be failed in the subject of Animal Genetics further debarring him from appearing in the compartmental examination of ensuing session. The petitioner made representation in the form of appeal to the University, however, the same remained undecided. According to the petitioner, he has been subjected to double punishment. Firstly, he is declared as failed in the subject of Animal Genetics, secondly, he is deprived from appearing in the compartmental examination, which is contrary to Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner contends that the relevant Rules enabling double punishment are unconstitutional. The Action taken against the petitioner relying upon such Rules is invalid and liable to be quashed and set aside.

4. The respondent-University filed affidavit-in-reply and justified the action taken against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner malpracticed during the conduct of the written examination. The enquiry was conducted. The petitioner was given due opportunity to put up his stand and on the basis of the findings of the enquiry, the petitioner has been dealt with in accordance with the relevant Academic Regulations framed by the University in consonance with the Veterinary Council of India - Minimum Standards of Veterinary Education – Degree Course (B.V.Sc. & A.H.) Regulations, 2016.

5. Mr. Savant, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner vehemently submits that the petitioner has been wrongly punished.