Supreme Court of India
DIRECTOR ( STUDIES) & ORS.versusVAIBHAV SINGH CHAUHAN
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 1237
- Decided
- 4 November 2008
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- ALTAMAS KABIR
Holding
Possession of unauthorized examination material is malpractice, the institute correctly imposed the minimum punishment under Rule 9.2, and the High Court’s orders are set aside.
Summary
The respondent, a student of hospitality management, was caught with a slip containing exam material during the 2005 Front Office Management exam and confessed to possessing it. The institute disqualified him for one academic session under Rule 9.2 of its Examination Rules and allowed re‑admission for the next session. The Delhi High Court, by interim and final orders, directed that he be allowed to re‑appear in the specific paper and that his results be declared, holding the punishment disproportionate. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that possession of unauthorized material constitutes malpractice irrespective of actual use, that the institute imposed the minimum punishment prescribed by Rule 9.2, and that the High Court’s orders were illegal. The Court also ruled that the Examination Rules are valid and not violative of Article 14, and that courts should not ordinarily interfere with disciplinary orders of educational institutions unless a clear legal violation exists. The appeal was allowed and the High Court judgments set aside.
Issues considered
- Whether possession of a slip containing examination material amounts to malpractice under Rule 8.1 of the Examination Rules, regardless of actual use.
- Whether the punishment of disqualification for one academic session under Rule 9.2 is proportionate and constitutes the minimum penalty, and whether discretion to reduce it is permissible.
- Whether the Delhi High Court’s interim and final orders directing re‑appearance in a single paper and declaration of results were legally valid.
- Whether the Examination Rules are invalid or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
- Whether courts should interfere with disciplinary orders of educational institutions in the absence of a statutory or legal breach.
Subjects
examination malpracticeunfair meansacademic disciplineeducational lawjudicial reviewArticle 14proportionalityrule interpretation
Judgment
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 224
,4'
y
A DIRECTOR (STUDIES) & ·oRS.
II.
VAIBHAV SINGH CHAUHAN
(Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2008)
NOVEMBER 4, 2008
B
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.]
y
Education:
c Examination Rules of the National Council of Hotel
Management and Cstering Technology, New Delhi:
rr. 8.1 and 9.2 -'.-- 'Malpractice' - Student while writing
examination in 2005 found in possession of a slip containing
material of the subject concerned - Disqualified for one
D academic session snd allowed to take readmission in same ~
class for academic session 2006-2007 - High Court by
interim order directing the Institute to permit· the s,tudent to
reappear in the forthcoming examination in th.e subject
concerned and by final judgment directing the Institute to
E · declare his result of the re-written examination in the subject
concerned and results of all the subjects of 2005 Examination
- Division Bench declining to interfere holding that the
punishmentimposed by Institution was disproportionate -
HELD: The student fs clearly guilty of malpractice - He has )' t
F been given the minimum punishment - No lesser punishment
· could have been given except in exceptional circumstances
and it was not a fit case for exercising discretion by waiving
or reducing the minimum punishment- There·is no illegality
in the order passed by the Institution - Nor are the Rules
G invalid nor violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
/ y +,
Educational matters - Examinations - Student found
guilty of unfair means/malpractice - HELD: High Courts
should not ordinarily interfere with orders pass.ed in
educational matters by domestic tribunals set up by
H 224
DIRECTOR (STUDIES) & ORS. v. VAIBHAV SINGH 225
CHAUHAN
...... 'f
educational institutions, unless there is clear violation of A
some statutory rule or legal principle - In academic matters,
there should be strict discipline and malpractices should be
severely punished.
The respondent was pursuing the degree course in 8
Hospitality and Hotel Administration. In the third and final
year examination which was held in April 2005, while
writing the answer scripts in the subject 'Front Office
Management', he was caught with a slip containing
material relevant to the subject. A 'malpractice' case was C
initiated against him. The respondent confessed t~at the
slip was in his own handwriting. The Institute disqualified
him for one academic session and permitted him to take
readmission for the academic session 2006-07 in the
same class and to appear in the annual examination in
2007. In the writ petition filed by the student, the single D
Judge of the High Court by an interim order dated
31.3.2006, directed the Institution to permit him "to appear
in the forthcoming 'Front Office Management'
Examination". Thereafter, in the final judgment, the single
Judge directed the Institution to declare the student's E
result of the re-written examination in the subject 'Front
Office Management' and also to declare his results in all
other subjects in which he had appeared in 2005. The
Institution having remained unsuccessful in the Letters
Patent Appeal, filed th·e instant appeal. F
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The respondent is clearly guilty of
malpractice as defined in sub-rule (1) of Rule 8.1 of the
Examination Rules of the National. Council of Hotel G
Management and Catering Technology, New Delhi. The
~ ~ plea that there was no evidence to show that the
respondent had actually used the slip of paper found in
his possession, is wholly irrelevant. All that is relevant is
whether the slip of paper found in the possession of the H
226 SUPREME· COURT REPORTS [2008f 15 S.C.R.
y •
A examinee pertained to the examination paper in question.
If itcioes, then itis a malpractice. In the instant case, the
slip of paper, which contained the materfal pertaining to
the paper in question, was brought into the examination
hall a.nd was found to be in possession of the examinee
s while .wrifing the examination. Whether the respondent
actu~lly used that slip or not is irrelevant. It is true that .
seeing .a slip of paper before commencement of the y
examination is not a malprac,tice, but in the instant case
the court is concerned with its use during th.e
c examination and not'before the examination. In academic
matters there should be strict discipline and malpractices
should be severely punished~ iPara 8, 9, 18 and 20] [230-
E, F, G; 236-F; 237-B]
- C.B.S.E. v. Vineeta Mahajan & Anr., [1993] 3 Suppl ..
D SCR 387 = [1994] 1 SCC 6; Regional Officer, C.B.S.E. v.
Sheena Peethambaran & Ors., .[2003] 3 Suppl. S.CR 275 =
[2003] 7 SCC 719; C.B. S.E. & Anr. v. P. Sunil Kumar & Ors.,
[1998] 3 SCR 327 = [1998] 5 SCC 377 ~nd Guru Nanak Dev
University v. Parminder Kumar Bansal & Ors., [1993] 4 SCC
E 401, relied on.
2.1: Rule 9.2 lays down that even if a candidate has
used unfair means only in one paper, he will be deemed
to have failed· in all the papers. In the instant case, the :
res-pondent no doubt was found with a slip of paper in
F the 'Front Office Examination' which was only one of the
papers, but in view of Rule 9.2 he will have ~o reappear
in the entire examination i.e. in all the papers, and not
merely in the 'Front Office Examination'. [Para .21] .[237-
D-E]
G 2.2. The respondent/examinee has been given the·
minimum punishment under Rule 9.2 and no lesser
punishment ·could have been imposed, except in
exceptional circumstances. '1t is true that when a person
confesses his guilt it is often treated as a mitigating
H circumstance and calls for 'lesser punishment if that is
DIRECTOR (STUDIES) & ORS. v. VAIBHAV SINGH 227
CHAUHAN
'(
permissible. However, this is not an absolute rule and will A
not apply in all kinds of cases. In particular, in academic ·
matters, there should be no leniency at all. This is not that
kind of exceptional case, and no sympathy was called
for. [Para 25] [233-F]
2.3. The interim direction by single Judge of the High B ,
Court to the Institution to allow the writ petitioner to re-
r appear in the forthcoming examination in the paper of
'Front Office Management' and the direction, while finally
deciding the writ petition, that the writ petitioner's result
in the subject 'Front Office Management' in which he c
appeared in April 2006 and other papers in which he
appeared in 2005 be declared were illegal. The Division
Bench of the High Court also was not right in holding that
•
,.
;..._
the punishment given was disproportionate to the offEmce
committed. In view of Rule 9.2 the respondent has been
given the minimum punishment, since he has been
D
disqualified for one academic session allowing him to
take re-admission for the session 2006-07. There is no
illegality in the order passed by the Institution. This was
not a fit case for exercising discretion by waiving or E
reducing the minimum punishment. Both the judgments
of the single Judge and the Division Bench of the High
Court are set aside. [Paras 12, 21-23, 25, 27 and 30] [231-
F-G; 237-D-E; G, H; 238-F; 239-B]
·" 2.4. There is no invalidity in the Examination Rules. F
There is rio violation of Article 14 nor of any other
provision of the Constitution nor of any other statute.
[Para 29] [239-D-E]
3. This Court has repeatedly held that the High
Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the orders G
~
passed in educational matters by domestic tribunals set
up by educational institutions, unless there is clear
violation of some statutory rule or legal principle. Also,
there must be strict purity in the examinations of
educational institutions and no sympathy or leniency H
228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.
A sho~ld be shown to candidates who resort to unfair ,
means in the examinations. [Para 32] (239-H; 240-A-C]
Board of High School & lnt~rmediate Education, U.P.
Allahabad & Anr. v. Bagleshwar Prasad & Anr., AIR (1963]
SCR 767 = (1966) SC 875, Dr. J.P. Kulshresth·a & Ors. v~
B Chancellor, Allahabad University & Ors., [1980] 3 SCR 902
AIR 1980 SC 2141 and Rajendra Prasad Mathury.·Kamataka
University & Anr., (1986] SCR 912 =AIR (1'986) SC 1448; '(
relied on. ··
c Case Law Reference :
[1993] 3 Suppl. SCR 387 relied on para 9
(2003] 3 Suppl. SCR 275. relied on para 15
(1998) 3 SCR 327 relied on para 15
D
(19931 4 sec 401 relied on para 15
(1963] SCR 767 relied on para 32
(1980] 3 SCR 902 relied on para 32
E
(1986] SCR 912 relied on para 32
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 34
of 2008. ·, · ·
)-.
F From the final Judgment and Order dated 24.5.2007 of the '
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Letter Patent Appeal No.
22 of 2007. . '
''I
Kamini Jaiswal for the Appellants.
G Lalit Bhasin, Nina Gupta; Swig in George and Bina Gupta
for the Respondent..
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MARKANDEY KATJU, J. 1. This appeal by special leave
H
. DIRECTOR (STUDIES) & ORS. v. VAIBHAV SINGH 229
CHAUHAN [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]
,.
has been filed against the impugned judgment & final order A
dated 24.5.2007 of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court
in Letter Patent Appeal No. 22 of 2007. The learned Division
Bench of the High Court dismissed the LPA by the following
order:
B
"Heard. For the reasons that will follow separately, this
appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs assessed
)'
at Rs. 5,000/-." '
2. Subsequently, the reasons were given by the learned
Division Bench which have been annexed to the counter affidavit c
filed in this appeal.
3. Heard Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned counsel for the
appellant and Shri Lalit Bhasin, learned counsel for the
respondent. D
~
· 4. The fact-s of the. case are that respondent Vaibhav
Singh Chauhan (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) was
admitted to Dr. Ambedekar Institute of Hotel Management,
Nutrition & Catering Technology, Chandigarh in the academic
session 2002-03 to undergo a degree course in Hospitality E
and Hotel Administration. He cleared all the subjects in the first
and second year. Thereafter he appeared in the third and final
year of the examination for the academic year 2004-05. On
.\ 19.4.2005 while he was writing his answer script in the subject
of 'Front Office Management' a slip was found in his possession F
which contained material relevant to the examination. The
invigilation staff took the slip into their possession and a fresh
, answer sheet was issued to the respondent.
---4 '
5. A malpractice case based on the seizure of the slip was G
initiated against the respondent by the Examination Committee
>~ of the appellant Institute. In his statement dated 19.4.2005
before the inquiry the respondent admitted that the slip which .
was seized from his possession was in his own han~writing.
Thus, he confessed the charge against him. However, he
H
230' SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008) 15 S.C.R.
y
A pleaded that he was extremely sorry for the mis~eed and would
not repeat it again.
6. By its order datea 7.7.2005 the Institute disqualified the
respondent for one academic session as per Rule 9.2 of the
Examination Rule of the Institute. The respondent was permitted
B
to take readmission for the academic session 2006-07 in the
same class and he had to appear in the annual examination in y
2007.
- 7. At this stage it may be relevant to quote some of the
c relevant rules, being the Examination Rules of the National
Council for Hotel management and Catering Technology, New
Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Examination Rules').
8. Rule 8.1 of the said Rules defines 'malpractice' in an
D examination. Sub-rule (1) of th.e said Rule 8.1 defines the
j
following as one of the malpractices in the examination:
-"candidate who-is found in possession of any notebook(s)
or notes or chits or any other unauthorized material
concerning the subject pertaining to the examination
E.
paper."
The respondent in our opinion .is clearly guilty of malpractice
as defined in sub-rule (1) of Rule 8.1 of the Examination Rules.
)-_
F 9. In this connection learned counsel for the respondent
submitted that there was no evidence to show that the
respondent had actually used the said slip of paper found .in
his possession. In our opinion, this is wholly irrelevant. All that
is relevant is whether the slip of paper found in the possession
·of the examinee pertained to the examination paper in question.
G If it does, then it is a malpractice. In this particular case, the
said slip of paper was brought into the examination hall and -
was found to be in the· possession of the examinee while the
examination was going on. Whether the respondent actually
used that slip or not is irrelevant. This view finds support from
H the decision of this Court in C.B.S.E. v. Vineeta Mahajan &
. 231
DIRECTOR (STUDIES) & ORS. v. VAIBHAV SINGH
CHAUHAN [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]
I
" Anr., [1994] 1 SCC 6. Moreover, this is also borne out by sub A :.
rule (1) of the Examination Rules, quoted above.
10. In the present case there is no doubt that the slip of
paper contained material pertaining to the examination in
question. Hence, we cannot accept the submission of .Shri Lalit
B
Bhasin that the respondent was not guilty of malpractice since
)' he was not found to have used that piece of paper.
11. Rule 9.2 of the Examination Rules states as follows:
"A candidate found exchanging answer book or question c
paper with solution or copying or having in his/her
possession or accessible to him/her papers, books, notes
or material relating to the subject of the question paper
shall be disqualified for a minimum period of one
academic session following the examination in question 0
" and is liable to be disqualified for a maximum period of
three years following the examination in which he/she
(deliberately) adopted unfair means. The candidate found
to have thus indulged in unfair means shall be deemed
to have failed in all subjects. After expiry of the period of
E;
disqualification such candidate shall have to reappear in
the entire examination."
(emphasis supplied)
~
12. It appears that in pursuance of Rule 9.2 the respondent F
has been given the minimum punishment, since he has been
disqualified for one academic session allowing him to take re-
admission for the session 2006-07. Hence, we find no illegality
in the order dated 7. 7 .2005, which is annexed as Annexure P-
3 to this appeal.
- ~ 13. The respondent filed a writ petition before the learned
Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in which an interim order
was passed by the learned Single Judge dated 31.3.2006, a
G
copy of which is annexed as Annexure P-5 to this appeal.
H'
232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 15.. S.C.R.
y '
A: 14. Since that interim order has relevance in this appeal
we are quoting it in its entirety as under : '
"ORDER
31,03.2006
B CM. No. 3725/2006
The charge against the petitioner is that he was found
in possession of a chit/slip of paper on which some notings
had been made. The records that are available at the
c present moment do not bear out whether this chit had
actually been used in the examination. The petitioner
immediately admitted to the possession of the slip and
stated that it would not happen again. His contrition is,
therefore, spontaneous.
D The respondent has impqsed on the petitioner the )
punishment under Rule 9.2 of Examination Rules, 2001 of
· National Council for Hotel Management Catering
Technology for one Academi.C Session following the
Examination in question. That provision also enables the
E imposition of a disqualification which may extend upto
three years. Rule 10.6 preserves to the authorities the
relaxation of even the minimum ,period of punishment, viz.,
one year.
F In the writ petition a challenge has been laid to the
legality of the Rules and Regulations. Leaned counsel for
the responc:fent states that these Rules are applicable to
24 ·institutes that are run by the respondents.
Before any punishment is inflicted on a person, even
G in circumstances where he admits to the possession of a
slip of paper containing information that is relevant to or
pertains to the examination, the authority should carefully
exercise its mind as to whether circumstances call for a
particular punishment. It has been contended by learned
H
..
DIRECTOR (STUDIES) & ORS. v. VAIBHAV SINGH 233
CHAUHAN [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]
counsel for the petitioner that where students are involved, A
the commission of a fault should be viewed with some
flexibility.
However, if too much laxity is shown by th~
authorities, especially in the case of cheating or using of B
unfair means in the examination, it would inexorably lead
to a decline in academic standards. Learned counsel for
the respondents also states that in academic matters the'
Court should not exercise any discretion.
So far as the last submission is concerned there is c
a difference in jural interference in academic standards
and Judicial Review of the punishment, the Order should
be a reasoned one. In the case in hand, all that is stated
is that the petitioner is "disqualified for academic session
--"'.
as per Rule 9.2 of the Examination Rules of the National D
Council." The petitioner was informed that he would have
to take readmission in the same class and will have to ·
appear in the annual examination in 2007. Learned
counsel for the respondents admits that while
representations had been received from the petitioner he E
is not in a position to state whether they were disposed of
or not.
The Court often encounters confessions or apologies
that are calculated to get out of a delicate position. In the
present case a confession/admission/apology has been
F
spontaneous. One full academic as well as professional
year has been lost. It is not a case where by furnishing a
confession the petitioner claims complete exbneration.
When the respondents' Rules themselves contain the
power to relax the imposition of a minimum period of G
\
"'! punishment, this course ought to have been transversed
and considered by the respondents. If it had been so done,
and plausible reasons had been given in the impugned
decision, for declining to impose a punishment of two years
[as it actually works out to be], this Court may have been t:i
~ · ·Q34
~ ·.. .
· . . SUPREME COURT REPORTS
• -, • J : •.
.[20081-15 S.C.R.
-~\ A·.. ~ "-: jqath.e .to interfere in the matter. Eve11 on such. a, serious
"'" .., " ; .rnatt~r. the respond_en~s haye not shown due-concern and
have not reduce~ to writing the reasons why a tYJO year
ban has been imposed. It is true that the Ruies explain that
•:"a :punishment of one year· discretion employed by
B. . .. ::, academic.authorities. In the first case; the Court would not
.... ::· ·'·normally be equipped with necessary wherewithal to rule
.· · · on academic criteria and therefore should be loathe to
·' · 'exercise writ powers. So· far as judicial review of the
decision taken by academic authorities is concerned if the
,. c. . . Court can interfere in G0vernment/administrative
'. '" • decisions, there is no reason why it cannot do so in the
<··""J .. co.ntexf of academic decistons also. The decision to
· ; .: ·impose a penalty, in any case, be described as an
... - a'cademic session .. In both cases what is expected of the
·court.ls to consider whether there was any arbitrariness
0 " Jn the action, or whether rules of natural justice have be.en
violated or ignored as the case may be, or the decision is
. unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense. It is within these
·paramete~s that the present case has to be considered.
E It cannot possibly be contradicted that the impugned
·order is of far-reaching consequences. In all such cases
it is essential for the authority concerned to give a complete
. and meaningful opportunity,to the delinquent to be heard.
It has ?lready been noted that the petitioner had confessed
: F to possession of the chit al~ost spontaneously. It is totally
... -.. . _left to speculation as to whether he was using the slip in
the course of the examination. A student placed in such a
predicam·ent would, with alacrity, submit his confession
?'
depending on what .assura~ces had been held out to him
G:'. · by the authorities. However, where discretion is available
'to the authorities, to waive any punishment or impose light
' or heavy would" be forfeiture of the examination in which
. 'the petitioner had appeared as well as 'the next following
'.~ ·.. -· .. yea~. H_oweve~: the Rules also, as has been seen_ above,
; , H .. ~;~,. r~pose discretion on the a:uthority _fo~·r~duction~ .. ~
DIRECTOR (STUDIES) & ORS. v. VAIBHAV SINGH 235
CHAUHAN [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.J
' An interim prayer has been made for permitting the. A
petitioner to appear in the examination 'Front Office
Examination' in the course of which he ·was found in
possession of some objectionable material. At this stage
of the proceedings I am of the view that the responderits
have not applied the Rules in their letter and spirit and have 8
not kept in mind the immediate acknowledgment/ ·
admission of the guilt being in possession of objectionabie
J
material. It is certainly arguable that possession of
objectionable material, per se, without a finding that that
material was intended to be used in the examination, c
would not b.e punishable_. If we care to think back to our .
student days, one would invariably recollect preparation of
such kind of slips for refreshing the mind immediately
before an examination, with~ further intent to use it as
unfair or illegitimate mannef. These aspects of the case
D
).._ have been ignored.
In these circumstances the respondents are directed
to permit the petitioner to appear in the forthcoming 'Front
Office Examination'. The appearance of the petitioner in
this examination will not create any equities in his favour. E
The results shall be kept in a sealed cover and shall be
only declared on orders of the Court. Leniency in matters,
such as these, was shown by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Swatantar Dixit v. Govind Rain, ·[2001] 10 SCC 761 by
reducing the punishment to 2-1/2 months, which was the F
period of suspension already undergon~.
List this application for further consideration on
1.5.2005.
WP© N0.4505/2006 G.
""'! Counter Affidavit be filed within two weeks.
Rejoinder be filed within two weeks thereafter.
Renotify on 1.5.2006."
H
236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.
y
~ - A 15. Before commenting on this interim order we would like
to say that this Court has repeat~dly disapproved of passing
of such interim orders ir:t educational matters vide Regional ·
- Officer, C.B.S.E. v. Sheena Peethambaran & Ors. 1 [2003] 7
SCC 719 (pa'ra 6); C.B.S.E. & Ahr. v. P. Sunil Kumar & Ors.,
B (1998) 5 SCC 377 and Guru Nanak pev University v.
Parminder Kumar Bansal & Ors., [1993) 4 SCC 401 etc.
y-
16. As noted in the above judgments of this Court 1 such
interim orders amount to misplaced sympathy which are wholly
uncalled for and often results in creating confusion and is
c destruction of academic discipljne and academic standards. ~-
--
17. Coming to the interim order of the learned Single Judge
dated 31.3.2006, it may be noted that in the very second
sentence of the order the learned Single Judge stated that the r
D record did not bear out whether the chit had actually been used - A.
in the examination. As alr~ady ,noted above, this was a wholly
irrelevant consideration. Once· it is found th_at the chit/piece of
paper contains material per1aining to the examination in
question it amounts to malpractice, whether the same was used •
E -by the examinee or not. -
18. The learned Single Judge in the interim order has then
emphasized on the fact that ;the respondent had apologized
and had confessed to the possession of the chit. In our opinion
- this again is a misplaced sympathy. We are of the firm opinion _
F that -in academic matters thete should be strict discipline and
malpractices should be severely punished. If our country is to
progress we must maintain high educational standards, and this
is only possible if malpractices in examinations in educational
institutions are curbed with an iron hand.
G
19. The learned Single Judge in the interim order then ·y
states -"if we care to think back to our student days, one would
invariably recollect preparation of such kin~ of slips for
refreshing the mind immediately before an examination, with
H no further intent to use it as an unfair or illegitimate manner".
----i DIRECTOR (STUDIES) & ORS. v. VAIBHAV SINGH 237
CHAUHAN [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]
"f
20. Here again, we respectfully cannot approve of the A
above observation of the learned Single Judge. A judge is
supposed to keep his personal view in the background and not
inject them in the judgments. What was done in his student days
was surely irrelevant for deciding the case or even passing an
interim order. It is true that seeing a· slip of paper before B
commencement of tha examination is not a malpractice, but in
the present case we are concerned with its use during the
examination and not before the examination. Hence we fail to
see how the above observation of the learned Single Judge
could be justified. c
21. The learned Single Judge has then directed the
Institution to allow the respondent to reappear in the forthcoming
'Front Office Examination'. In our opinion, this again was wholly
illegal. As noted in Rule 9.2 (quoted above), even if a candidate
> has used unfair means only in one paper, he will be deemed D
to have failed in all the papers. In the present case, the
respondent no doubt was found with a slip of paper in the 'Front
Office Examination' which was only one of the papers. However,
in view of Rule 9.2 he will have to reappear in the entire
examination i.e. in all the papers, and not merely in the Front E
Office Examination.
22. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the
4 learned Single Judge was wholly unjustified in passing the
aforesaid interim order dated 31.3.2006. F
23. Thereafter in the final judgment dated 30.10.2006, the
learned Single Judge directed the result of the respondent to
be declared forthwith for the subject 'Front Office' for which the
respondent appeared in April 2006 pursuant to the interim
order dated 31.3.2006, and also to declare the result of the G
• ~ respondent in other subjects in which he appeared in 2005. The
learned Single Judge was of the view that the punishment
imposed was disproportionate to the offence, particularly since
the respondent had shown remorse and sought for9iveness.
4 H
~
238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.
y
A 24. We are afraid we cannot agree with the view taken by
the learned Single Judge. As alrea<;iy stated above, we have
to be very strict in maintaining high academic standards and
maintaining academic discipline and academic rigour if our ~
country is to progress. Sympathy for students using unfair
..__
B' means is wholly out of place.
25. Moreover, the respondent/examinee has been given "(-
'
the minimum punishment under: the rules and no lesser
punishment could have been imposed, except in exceptional
circumstances. It is true that when a person confesses his guilt
c it is often treated as a mitigating circumstance and calls for
lesser punishment if that is permissible. However, this is not an
absolute rule and will not apply in all kinds of cases. In particular,
as stated above, in academic matters there should be no
leniency at all if our GOuntry is to progress. Apart from that, the
D respondent had been given the minimum punishment under /
Rule 9.2 and we fail to understand how a lesser punishment
could have given to him, except 'by exercising discretion in a
particular case. This is not that kind of exceptional case, and
no sympathy was called for.
E
25. The learned Single Jt;idge in his judgment dated
30.10.2006 has directed that the writ petitioner's result in the
subject 'Front Office' in which he
appeared in April 2006 and
other papers in Which -he. appeared in 2005 be declared ~
F forthwith. In our opinion, this was an illegal djrection, because
as stated in Rule 9.1, once a candidate has been found using
unfair means even in one subject/paper, he will be deemed to
have failed in all the subjects/papers and he has to rewrite the
entire examination, and not merely for the single paper in which
he is found to. have used unfair means.
G
26. An appeal was filed before the learned Division Bench
' '
y ~-·
of the Delhi High Court which has been dismissed by the
impugned judgment which we have carefully perused. We regret
our inability to agree with the; Division Bench.
H
l•
DIRECTOR (STUDIES) & ORS. v. VAIBHAV SINGH 239
CHAUHAN [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]
27 .. The learned Division Bench has ~epeated the vi~w of A
the learned Single Judge that the punishment given was
disproportionate to the offence committed. We entirely disagree
.with that view. As already. stated above, the minimum
punishment was imposed on the respondent and we fail to
unders.ta_nd what other punishment could have been given to him B
even when he has confessed his guilt. In our opinion, this was
not a fit case for exercising discretion by waiving or reducing
the minimum punishment.
28. Moreover, the learn~d Division Bench seems to have C
made the same mistake made by the learned Single Judge in
directing that the respondent's result of the subject 'Front Office'
examination held in 2006 along with the result in other papers
written by h.im in 2005 be declared forthwith. As already stated
above, this direction is against Rule 9.2 of the Examination
:. . Rules. D
29. Shri Bhasin, learned counsel for the respondent then
submitted that the examination rules were invalid. We have
carefully perused the rules and find no inval~dity in the same.
There is no violation of Article 14 or any other provision of the E
Constitution or any other statute.
30. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that both
the judgments of the learned Single Judge as well as the
learned Division Bench cannot be sustained and have to be
F
set aside. We order accordingly. Resultantly, the appeal stands
allowed. The impugned judgment of the learned Division Bench
as well as the Single Judge are set aside and the writ petition
is dismissed.
31. There shall be no order as to costs. G.
32. Before parting with this case, we would like to refer to
the decisions of this Court which has repeatedly held that the
High Court· should not ordinarily interfere with the orders
passed in educational matters by d~mestic tribunals set up by H
240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.
y
A educational institutions vid~ Bot!Jrd qf High School &
Intermediate Education, U.P. f.llahabad & Anr v. f?agleshw.ar
Prasad & Anr, AIR (1966) SC 875 (vi~e para 12), Dr. J.P.
Kulshrestha & Ors. v. Chancellor, Allahabad University & Ors.,
AIR (1980) SC 2141 (vide para 17), Rajendra Prasad Mathur
B v.. Kamataka University & Anr., AIR (198q) SC 1448 (vide para
·· 7). We wish to reiterate the view taken -in the above decisions,
and further state that the High Courts should not ordinarily
interfere with the functioning and order of the educational
authorities unless there is clear violation of some statutory rule
c or legal principle. Also, there must be strict purity in the
examinations of educational institutions and no sympath..y or
leniency should be shown to candidates who· resort to unfair
means in the examinations.
RP Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "examination malpractice"Sign in to search