The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur has set aside an order passed by Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Law University cancelling a law student’s entire second-year examination over alleged misconduct during an exam. The Court held that the University failed to follow due procedure under Ordinance 152 and that the appellate authority’s order lacked reasoning, amounting to a violation of natural justice.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7069/2025, filed by Mohit Sharma, a second-year LLB student, challenging the University’s appellate order dated February 17, 2025.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, represented by Advocates Mr. Vikram Ballav Sharan and Ms. Akshita Sharma, appeared for his LLB second-year examination in the subject “Public International Law and Human Rights” on July 31, 2024. During the exam, a flying squad member inspected him. According to the petitioner, although he allowed the inspection, he objected to being checked again, pointing out that such checks had already been conducted at the entrance. His objection, he contended, was misconstrued as misconduct.
Following this, the respondent-University passed an order on January 10, 2025, cancelling the present examination and debarred him from appearing in exams for one year. The petitioner filed a statutory appeal, after which the Appellate Authority, by the impugned order dated February 17, 2025, reduced the punishment to cancellation of only the present exam.
Submissions by the Parties
For the Petitioner:
Counsel for the petitioner argued that his version of events was not recorded in Form 39-E at the time of the incident. They submitted that although the petitioner had tendered an apology in the appeal, a disproportionate punishment was still imposed. They urged that such action warranted judicial intervention.
For the Respondent-University:
Advocate Mr. Ajit Maloo, appearing for the University, contended that the petitioner not only refused inspection but also created a commotion, threatened the flying squad, and demanded to use his mobile phone. It was submitted that this amounted to “Disorderly conduct” under Ordinance 152(2) of the Rajasthan University, which the respondent-University has adopted. Accordingly, the punishment order dated January 10, 2025, was passed and later modified by the appellate order under challenge.
Observations and Analysis
The Court noted that although Form 39-E (Annexure R1/2) included allegations against the petitioner, it did not mention that he had refused to sign the form or submit his explanation.
Justice Dhand observed:
“In the considered opinion of this Court, the respondent-University have failed to comply with the provisions contained under the Ordinance 152 and heavy punishment order has been imposed, by which the petitioner’s entire second year examination has been cancelled.”
The Court cited Clause 3 of Ordinance 152, which outlines a range of punishments for unfair means or disorderly conduct. These include cancellation of the paper involved, cancellation of the full exam, or future debarment. The judge emphasized:
“Clause 3 of the Ordinance 152 deals with a lighter punishment i.e. the cancellation of the result of the paper in respect of which he is found guilty. The same could have been passed… but instead… the entire second year examination of the petitioner has been cancelled.”
Additionally, the Court criticised the appellate authority for passing a non-speaking, one-line order:
“The Appellate Authority has decided the appeal of the petitioner in one single line, and the stand of the petitioner was not even taken into account. No reasoned and speaking order has been passed…”
Such failure to record reasons was held to be a breach of natural justice:
“If any appeal is decided by the Appellate Authority without recording the reasons, the same amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. After all, passing of the punishment order causes stigma on the life, future and career of a student.”
Final Order
The High Court quashed the impugned order dated February 17, 2025, and remitted the matter to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration. The Court directed:
“The fresh order would be passed by the respondent-University within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.”
The writ petition, along with all pending applications, was accordingly disposed of.
