Ashutosh Kumar, J.—

Re. I.A. Nos. 1/2021 in L.P.A. No. 227/2020, 1/2021 in L.P.A. No. 226/2020, 1/2020 in L.P.A. No. 237/2020, 1/2020 in L.P.A. No. 241/2020, 1/2021 in L.P.A. No. 244 of 2020, 1/2021 in L.P.A. No. 247/2020 and 1/2021 in L.P.A. No. 252 of 2020 :—

After perusal of the records, we find that the delay in preferring these appeals by the Arayabhatta Knowledge University, Patna have not been condoned.

2. In view of the explanation given in the afore-noted interlocutory applications, the delay of 16, 18 and 19 days respectively in preferring these appeals are, hereby, condoned.

3. All the interlocutory applications, aforenoted, are allowed.

Re. L.P.A. Nos. 227/2020, 226/2020, 237/2020, 241/2020, 244/2020, 247/2020 and 252/2020 :—

All these appeals have been taken up together and a common judgment is being passed.

2. Heard Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha and Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, the learned Advocates for the appellants/University.

3. The respondents/students have already passed the M.B.B.S. examination. While they were writing Semester 2 examination, they were alleged to have used unfair means in the examination hall, leading to cancellation of their result.

4. This led the respondents/students to challenge the aforesaid decision of the Arayabhatta Knowledge University, Patna (in short the University) , which was primarily based on the report of the Unfairmeans Committee, which relied upon the statement made by the Invigilator of the rooms in which the respondents/students were writing their examinations. Some of them were charged with the offense of copying from a chit of paper while others had mobile phones in their possession which was capable of mass storage of answers.

5. In any view of the matter, what surprises us today is that when the Invigilator caught them/students in adopting unfair-means in the examination hall, still they were permitted to write their examination. It was only later that a complaint was made by the Invigilator, which necessitated a referral to the Unfair-Means Committee and final cancellation of their result and their further debarment from appearing in any examination in the current session.

6. The learned Single Judge, after taking note of the facts, found that the Invigilator had reported about the matter on 06.07.2019 and 08.07.2019, but no chit or mobile phone was seized by such Invigilator. The Invigilator, according to the learned Single Judge, reported the matter to the Centre Superintendent only after the examination was over. The fact that the respondents/students were not stopped from writing the examination was taken as a clinching evidence of the fact that the respondents/students were not at fault.

7. In that background, the learned Single Judge seriously took note of the denial of the factum of recovery of any chit or mobile or smartphone from their respective possession.

8. Additionally, the learned Single Judge also found that the Unfair-Means Committee did not record any specific finding on the basis of the facts that the show-cause given by the students made out any case of unfair-means of any grade as defined under the regulation framed by the University, necessitating cancellation of the result of such students.

9. Thus, on finding that the opinion of the Unfair-Means Committee was based merely and solely on the report of the Invigilator, who reported the matter only after the examination was over, the decision of the Unfair-Means Committee as also of the University, cancelling the result of the students was set-aside and the University was directed to publish the result of the students.

10. Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha, the learned Advocate for the appellants/University has contended that while dealing with the question as to whether the Committee was justified in coming to a conclusion that the respondents/students had indulged in unfairmeans, it was not appropriate to exclude from consideration the circumstances under which the enquiry was held and the general background prevailing in the educational