ORDER :

HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.

1. By way of present appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellant - original petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.21860 of 2022, whereby the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the petition.

2. Heard learned advocate Ms.Kirti Pathak for the appellant-original petitioner.

3. The case before the learned Single Judge was that the petitioner was enrolled with the respondent – Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (for short, the ‘ICAI’) with Student Registration No.WRO0631708 and had cleared the Common Proficiency Test and Intermediate Levels of examination conducted by the ICAI. The petitioner had appeared in the C.A. final level examination in the month of May 2022. The examinations were held from 14.5.2022 to 29.5.2022. The Paper 6F ‘Multi Disciplinary Case Study’ was to be conducted as per the ‘Open Book’ methodology. Further, it was the case of the petitioner before the learned Single Judge that he had appeared in the papers consisted of Multiple Choice Questions accounting for 40 marks out of 100 and Descriptive type accounting for 60 marks out of 100 and he received a phone call informing him that his case has been considered for unfair means by the ICAI. Subsequently, it was clarified through the mark-sheet which was indicating the assessment of only the Multiple Choice Questions where the petitioner secured 32 out of 100 marks and so far as the Descriptive Questions were concerned, the petitioner was assessed as ‘fail’. The mark-sheet further indicated that the petitioner failed in Paper 6F. A communication dated 25.8.2022 was issued by the ICAI informing the petitioner that the petitioner had not written the answers in the answer book, instead he had cut-pasted the answers from the study material on the answer book.

4. Learned advocate Ms.Kirti Pathak vociferously argued that there was no any instructions issued by the respondent ICAI that in the ‘Open Book’ methodology exam answers were required to be handwritten. Even, during the course of examination, the petitioner was not restrained from doing copy-paste the answers and without affording an opportunity of hearing, the respondent ICAI has declared the petitioner ‘fail’, thereby the petitioner has been denied the principles of natural justice. The career of the petitioner has been ruined due to the arbitrary act on the part of the respondent ICAI. Further, she has relied on the key-points note for information and guidance of the applicants issued by the respondent ICAI for the final examination to be conducted in the month of May 2023, wherein it has been clearly stated that the candidates should write the answers in their own handwriting and they are prohibited from pasting the answers from the reference material or any other source in their answer booklet and any violation of the same shall tantamount to unfair means. It is submitted that no such instructions were issued at the relevant point of time and due to this, the petitioner was misled. There was no any unfair practice on the part of the petitioner. Hence, she requested to quash and set-aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and to direct the respondent ICAI to treat the petitioner as having passed in the Paper-6F of the C.A. final examination.

5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments canvassed by learned advocate Ms.Kirti Pathak for the appellant – original petitioner and have perused the materials on record. It is undisputed and admitted fact that the appellant – petitioner had appeared in the C.A. final examination held by the respondent – ICAI. The examination was on ‘Open Book’ methodology, wherein the appellant – petitioner had cut- pasted the answers from the study material on the answer book and considering the said act of the petitioner as ‘unfair’, the petitioner was declared fail in the Paper-6F examination.

6. We have perused