JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel representing the State-respondents and Dr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel representing the respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

2. This intra-court appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 28.07.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-C No.122 of 2022, whereby the said writ petition filed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 has been allowed and the order challenged therein, dated 22.12.2021 whereby the College in question was debarred from becoming the examination center for the period of six years, has been quashed.

3. Submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition filed by the College has not appropriately construed to the provisions contained in the Statute 10.04 of the First Statutes of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Avadh University, Faizabad and as such the judgment and order under appeal is not sustainable. It has further been argued that the matter relating to mass copying, as was alleged against the College, was considered firstly by a Sub-Committee and thereafter by the Examination Committee and finally by the Executive Council of the University and hence the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that there is no specific provision either in the U.P. State Universities Act or in the First Statutes framed by the University to debar a college from acting as examination center, erroneous. It has further been stated on behalf of the appellants that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the decision of the University debarring the College from acting as examination center is without any statutory backing is also erroneous in view of the provisions contained in Section 21 of the U.P. State Universities Act, read with Statute 10.04 of the First Statutes of the University concerned.

4. On the other hand, Dr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel representing the College, while supporting the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge which is under appeal herein, has argued that as a matter of fact the University authorities did not have any jurisdiction or power to debar the College from acting as examination center in view of the provisions contained in Government Order dated 03.01.2020. It has further been argued by him that there has been no complaint, whatsoever, against the College and that it has all along been functioning as an examination center without any complaint from any corner. Dr. Singh has also argued that the entire action which ultimately resulted in debarring the College from functioning as an examination center has precipitated on account of malafide on behalf of the University authorities for the reason that in a certain matter the contempt proceedings were instituted by the College against the University authorities. Drawing our attention to Clause 11 of the Government Order dated 03.01.2020, it has been argued by Dr. Singh that only those colleges shall not be assigned to act as an examination center where some report by the officers regarding mass copying has been sent which has necessitated re-examination of the students and where the Examination Committee of the Government has taken a decision to debar. Thus, the submission is that it is the State Government which possesses the authority to pass an order of debarring in terms of the Government Order dated 03.01.2020 and not the University authorities including the Examination Committee. Submission is, thus, that the Special Appeal is liable to be dismissed at its threshold.

5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel representing the respective parties and have also perused the record available before us on this Special Appeal.

6. The College, in question, namely, Maa Tilsera Devi P.G. College, Bhasra, Post Office Tanda, District Ambedkar Nagar is a College affiliated to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Avadh University and is imparting education upto the Post Graduati