The court upheld the cancellation of all examinations due to malpractice, affirming that disciplinary actions must be proportional to the misconduct and consistent with examination regulations.

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna, J.

1. This writ appeal is filed under Section 5 (i) of the KERALA HIGH COURT ACT , 1958, by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.20058 of 2025, challenging the judgment dated 03.06.2025, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P9 order dated 17.02.2025 issued by the 3^rd respondent to the extent it cancels appellant’s semester III and V, UG examinations of November-December 2024, conducted by respondents 2 and 3 and also a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2 and 3 to declare the appellant’s result in semester III and V, UG examinations.

2. The appellant was a student of the three-year B.A. Analytical Economics Course at the 2^nd respondent College. She cleared all subjects of the first five semesters, except the third semester Hindi examination paper of Grammar, Communicative Hindi and Information Technology. The appellant applied for the supplementary examination of the failed Hindi paper and improvement examination of two subjects viz., Statistical Tools for Economics and Intermediate Micro Economics. She appeared in the supplementary examination of Grammar, Communicative Hindi and Information Technology on 22.11.2024 and completed the exam. But while appearing for the improvement exam in Statistical Tools for Economics on 25.11.2024, she was caught using unfair means, since she wrote a few equations on the back of her hall ticket. According to the appellant, though she immediately erased the equations from the hall ticket before the question paper was served, while erasing, the Invigilator apprehended her and accused her of malpractice. The Invigilator reported it to the Examination Chief; and from there to the Controller. The college authorities did not permit her to write the examination for Statistical Tools for Economics. The college authorities further did not allow her to attend the 2^nd improvement examination of the subject Intermediate Micro Economics. Along with the appellant, the Controller of Examinations proceeded against 22 other students for examination malpractice, on reasons varying, including possessing written materials, writing answers on hand, for possessing mobile phones, etc. The Controller of Examinations summoned the appellant along with her mother, and during the hearing, he remarked to the mother of the appellant that the appellant was caught red-handed for writing on the back side of the hall ticket. The appellant then submitted an apology letter, and she had also agreed to pay a total hearing fee of Rs.3,030/-. On 13.05.2025, when the appellant, along with her mother went to the College to enquire about the proceedings, the Controller informed her that all the examinations attempted by her were cancelled and so results of her Hindi supplementary examination would not be announced and handed over Ext.P9 order dated 17.02.2025 issued by the Controller of Examinations to the appellant. Challenging Ext.P9, the appellant approached this Court with the writ petition as stated above.

3. In the writ appeal, the 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 20.06.2025 opposing the reliefs sought in the appeal and producing therewith Exts.R2(a) to R2(h) documents. To that counter affidavit, the appellant filed a reply affidavit dated 03.07.2025.

4. After hearing both sides and appreciation of materials on record, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by the judgment d