1. Lalit Krishna Women Institute of Higher Education, Inderpur, Ballia1 is an educational institution affiliated to Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi2 (the fourth respondent). It was made an examination centre by the University for conducting annual examination of Undergraduate courses during the academic session 2014-15. On 7.5.2015, the flying squad visited the institution in the first meeting, when Mathematics (Second) Paper examination of B.Sc. 1st Year was being held. It was followed by a report of the flying squad stating that at 10.45 a.m. when it reached the institution and compared the answer scripts, it found answers of almost all the students to question no.1 and 8 (a) & (b) to be identical. The report of the flying squad was placed before the Examination Committee, which after considering the same in its meeting held on 3.6.2015, concluded that mass copying had taken place in the institution. It, therefore, imposed (a) a fine of Rs.3 lacs; (b) debarred the institution from being made examination centre for next three years and (c) cancelled the entire result of the students who had appeared in the examination held in the first meeting on 7.5.2015. In case the fine is not deposited within three months, proceeding would be initiated for cancellation of the affiliation of the institution. The decision of the Examination Committee was communicated by the Registrar by order dated 13.6.2015.
2. The Institution through its committee of management challenged the communication of the decision of the Examination Committee by the Registrar by filing writ petition3, which was disposed of by this Court by judgment and order dated 30.6.2015 in terms of the judgment passed in Writ-C No.35627 of 2015 (C/M Sri Neelam Devi Maha Vidyalaya through its Manager Vs. State of U.P. and others). The said writ petition was filed by another educational institution aggrieved by the same decision of the Examination Committee. The writ petition aforesaid was disposed of by this Court by directing the University to provide post decisional hearing to the management and during that period the decision impugned was kept in abeyance.
3. In compliance of the order passed by this Court, the petitioner institution was made available the tabulation chart pertaining to the students of the institution. The result of Mathematics Second Paper of B.Sc. 1st Year was placed under UFM (Unfair Means) category. In compliance of the order of this Court dated 30.6.2015, the Registrar of the University issued a notice dated 14.7.2015 requiring the Principal of the institution to remain present for hearing on 22.7.2015 at 3.00 p.m. alongwith all relevant records before the Vice Chancellor. The petitioner committee appeared before the Vice Chancellor on the assigned date and time and submitted its written objections, in which request was made to cancel the decision of the Examination Committee imposing fine of Rs.3 lacs, restore the status of the educational institution as an examination centre and to declare the entire result of the examination in question. The Vice Chancellor passed an order on 1.10.2015, whereby he reaffirmed the decision of the Examination Committee dated 3.6.2015 holding the petitioner institution guilty of the charge of mass copying. While reaffirming the decision of the Examination Committee, the Vice Chancellor placed reliance on the report of the flying squad and the decision of the Examination Committee.
4. The order of the Vice Chancellor dated 1.10.2015 was once again subject matter of challenge at the instance of the petitioners by taking recourse to the writ jurisdiction4 of this Court. Therein, the main grievance of the petitioners was that the report of the flying squad and the Examination Committee on which reliance was placed by the Vice Chancellor had not been supplied to the petitioners and thus there had been violation of principles of natural justice. This Court on the basis of the statement made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University that the University is prepared to afford a fresh hearing to the petitioners after supplying the report of the flying squad and the Examination Committee, quashed the order dated 1.10.2015 and directed for a fresh order being passed after supplying the above mentioned documents to the petitioners.
5. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 27.10.20155, the University vide letter dated 7.11.2015 supplied the copy of the report of flying squad and decision of the Examination Committee to the petitioners and called upon it to remain present for hearing on 16.11.2015 alongwith the records. The petitioners appeared before the Vice Chancellor on 16.11.2015 and submitted their written objection, wherein a specific plea was taken that the exam concluded at 10:30 a.m. and thereafter the answer scripts were also sealed and at this stage the flying squad reached and insisted for looking into the answer scripts which was objected to by the Centre Superintendent on the ground that it would breach the confidentiality of the examination. The petitioners in their objections also alleged that the flying squad asked for illegal gratification, and threatened it of dire consequences in case its demand is not met. It was pleaded that there was no evidence of mass copying nor any report to the said effect, thus, the allegation of mass copying is unfounded. While the matter remained pending, the petitioner institution by letter dated 17.12.2015 made a request to the Vice Chancellor to declare the result of the students of the petitioner institution. Ultimately, the Vice Chancellor by the impugned order dated 21.12.2015 has concluded that mass copying had taken place while the examination of Mathematics II paper of B.Sc. Ist year was conducted in the petitioner institution. The Vice Chancellor has accordingly reaffirmed the imposition of various penalties by the Examination Committee. It has been held that such decision is necessary to ensure purity of the examination and the maintenance of the educational standard. Aggrieved thereby, the instant writ petition has been filed by the committee of management of the institution.
6. The issues that fall for consideration are (i) whether the University was right in concluding that mass copying had taken place in the petitioner institution?; and (ii) whether the punishment imposed by the University in the facts and circumstances of the instant case is justified or not ?
7. The Vice Chancellor has inferred mass copying having taken place on account of two factors. The Vice Chancellor placing reliance on the report of the flying squad which mentions that it made a comparison of the answer scripts of the students at 10:45 a.m. had concluded that the examination was going on even beyond the prescribed time i.e., 10:30 a.m. and this, in his opinion, amounts to mass copying being contrary to the Rules of the University. The second factor which weighed with the Vice Chancellor in concluding that mass copying had taken place is again the report of the flying squad, which mentions that answers to question no.1 and 8 (a) & (b) of almost all the students, on being compared, were found to be identical.
8. In respect of first factor, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the examination of Mathematics Second Paper of B.Sc. 1st year held on 7.5.2015 was over at 10:30 a.m., the time prescribed by the University. The answer scripts after being collected were made into a bundle, which had been sealed. At this stage, the flying squad arrived and insisted for inspection of the answer scripts, which was objected to by the Examination Superintendent. This annoyed the members of the flying squad and they insisted for inspecting the answer scripts. According to the petitioners, they also asked for illegal gratification, failing which they threatened the institution of dire consequences. It is submitted that even in the report of the flying squad, there is no mention that at the time they arrived in the institution, the examination was being held. It is submitted that in such circumstances, the Vice Chancellor was not justified in imputing the charge of mass copying on the ground that the examination had continued beyond the prescribed time.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the University tried to support the charge of mass copying on the ground that the examination had continued beyond the prescribed time by referring to Clause 7 of the guidelines framed by the University, whereunder the flying squad was to make recommendation of mass copying against the examination centre where exams were found to have continued beyond the prescribed time. He further placed reliance on certain letters obtained from the members of the flying squad while the matter was pending before the Vice Chancellor in pursuance of the direction given by this Court in its judgment and order dated 27.10.2015 in Writ-C No.59461 of 2015, in which it is stated that it found the examination continuing at 10 : 45 a.m., when it visited the institution. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid clarification issued by the members of the flying squad, it is amply clear that the examination had continued beyond the prescribed time and thus, the Vice Chancellor was justified in concluding that mass copying had taken place.
10. The University had framed guidelines, on the basis of which the flying squad was to ascertain as to whether mass copying had taken place or not. Clause 7 thereof specifically provides that in case the students were found writing the answer book before or after the prescribed time, it shall be inferred that mass copying had taken place at such centre. Thus, it cannot be gainsaid that in case the students were found writing the answer scripts at 10:45 a.m. which is beyond 10:30 a.m. by which the examinations were supposed to be over, the charge of mass copying would stand established. However, the question for consideration is whether there was any material before the Vice Chancellor on basis of which such inference could have been drawn. The relevant part of the report of the flying squad dated 7.5.2015 mentions as under:-
vH;qfDr & 10%45 ,0,e0 ij tc mM+kdk ny igqWpk rks m0 iq0 ds feyku ij iz'u la0 1 rFkk 8 ¼,½] ch ds mRrj yxHkx lHkh Nk=kvksa ds ,d leku ik;s x;sA
11. It is clear from the report of the flying squad that it reached the petitioner institution at 10:45 a.m. which is after the prescribed time for the examination being over. The report of the flying squad nowhere mentions that at 10:45 a.m. when it reached the examination centre, the students were found writing the answer book. On the other hand, the specific case of the petitioners in their written objections submitted before the Vice Chancellor on 16.11.2015 was that the examination was over at 10:30 a.m. and even the bundles had been sealed when the flying squad arrived and insisted for looking into the answer scripts. It seems that in order to meet the specific stand taken by the petitioner institution in this regard in its written objection dated 16.11.2015, the Registrar by letter dated 12.12.2015 addressed to Dr. Santosh Kumar Gupta and Dr. Virendra Pratap Singh, the members of the flying squad, obtained their response. The members of the flying squad in their undated letter submitted to the Registrar stated that "the flying squad as per its duty schedule, reached the said college on 7.5.2015 at 10:45 a.m. and was surprised to find that the examination was continuing flouting the examination and University Rules". As noted above, in the report submitted by the flying squad on the date of inspection, there is no indication that the examination was continuing at the time they arrived at the examination centre. On the contrary, as noted above, the specific case of the petitioners was that since the examination was over at 10:30 a.m. and thus, the flying squad was not justified in comparing the answer scripts after getting the bundle unsealed and in submitting the report in question. Concededly, the aforesaid letters were obtained from the members of the flying squad after the hearing before the Vice Chancellor concluded on 16.11.2015. In case the University had obtained such additional material after conclusion of the hearing, the petitioners should have been confronted with such material, before placing reliance upon the same. However, the same having not been done, in the opinion of the Court, the conclusion drawn by the Vice Chancellor placing reliance on the aforesaid letters cannot be sustained.
12. Irrespective of what has been held above, there is yet another aspect of the matter which needs to be taken note of. The report of the flying squad dated 7.5.2015 was the sole basis for holding the petitioner institution guilty of mass copying. The report of the flying squad, as noted above, only mentions that on inspection, it found certain answers had been given in identical fashion by most of the students. At that time there was no allegation that the charge of mass copying is being imputed on the petitioners on the ground that examination had continued beyond the prescribed time. Even after the matter was remitted back to the Vice Chancellor by this Court vide its order dated 30.6.2015 and following which the Vice Chancellor passed fresh order dated 1.10.2015, there was not even a suggestion that the examination had infact continued beyond 10:30 a.m. In case the answer scripts were being written beyond the prescribed time and the directions to the flying squad issued by the University specifically provides that in case the examination had continued beyond the prescribed time, the same itself is sufficient to infer mass copying, there does not appear any reason why such fact was not mentioned in the report submitted by the flying squad on that date itself.
13. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is unable to uphold the charge of mass copying on the ground that the examination had continued beyond the prescribed time.
14. The other consideration on which charge of mass copying is found to be established is, as noted above, the report of the flying squad mentioning that on comparison of the answer scripts of the students, the answers to question no.1 and 8 (a) & (b) had been found to be given in an identical manner by most of the students. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that firstly, the examination being over at 10:30 a.m., the flying squad was not empowered to get the answer scripts unsealed and carry out comparison of the answer scripts. Further, the flying squad was not competent to carry out comparison of answers and especially when none of its members were from the faculty of Mathematics. It is submitted that at best the flying squad could have made a recommendation for an enquiry being made by an expert body. It is urged that it is only the examiner evaluating the answer scripts who could infer mass copying on the ground that answers have been given in identical manner by most of the students and such power is not vested in the flying squad. It is submitted that there is no such report of the Examination Controller in respect of the petitioner institution and thus, the charge of mass copying is wholly unfounded. It is pointed out that the Examination Controller, on the basis of the report of the examiner, had made recommendation of mass copying only in respect of three institutions, which does not include the petitioner institution. In respect of these institutions, the Examination Committee by other part of its resolution of the same date had resolved to levy a fine of Rs.3 lacs and other punishments. It is thus sought to be submitted that had there been similarity in the answers given by the students, the Examination Controller/Examiner would have submitted report of mass copying against the petitioner institution but there being no such report, it cannot be concluded that any mass copying had taken place.
15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent University submitted that although the members of the flying squad were not expert in the field of maths but being seasoned academicians, they were competent enough to ascertain whether or not the answers had been given in identical manner by most of the students. It is submitted that the Examination Committee, which is an expert body, had duly considered the report of the flying squad and had thereafter taken the impugned decision. It is urged that under the guidelines framed by the University, the recommendation made by the flying squad in respect of mass copying is final and conclusive and was thus rightly acted upon by the Examination Committee. The said fact has been duly noted by the Vice Chancellor in the impugned order and no exception can be taken to the same.
16. The guidelines framed by the University on the basis of which the flying squad is to make recommendation for taking action in case of mass copying has been brought on record as Annexure-26 to the writ petition. Clause 6 (a) to (e) contains the guidelines for determining whether mass copying had taken place or not, which are as under:-
(a) mM+kdk ny ds lnL; ijh{kk d{k esa ;fn lkewfgd :i ls udy djk;s tkus vFkkZr CySd cksMZ ls fy[kokus vFkok iqLrd ls cksy dj fy[kkus dh fLFkfr ls voxr gSa rks lkewfgd udy dh tkWp dh laLrqfr djsaxsaA
(b) ,d ijh{kk d{k esa vf/kdka'k ijh{kkFkhZ udy lkexzh ls udy djrs vFkok vius ikl udy lkexzh ¼eqfnzr vFkok gLrfrf[kr vFkok b.VjusV vFkok bysDVªkfud xStsV ls miyC/k½ j[ks gq, vFkok udy djrs idM+s tk,W rks ,slh fLFkfr esa Hkh lewg esa udy [email protected] udy dh laLrqfr dh tk,xhA
(c) lewg esa udy dk rkRi;Z gksxk fd ijh{kkFkhZ udy ls lEcfU/kr mi;qZDr of.kZr lkexzh j[ks gq, vFkok bLrseky djrs gq, vFkok Qsadrs gq, ns[kk x;k gksA
(d) lkewfgd udy dk vk'k; fcUnq la[;k&06 (a ,oa b) esa mfYyf[kr fooj.k ds vuqlkj gksxkA
(e) mM++kdk ny ds igqWpus ij ;fn ijh{kk dsUnz dk eq[; xsV cUn jgrk gS vkSj 'kh?kz [kksyk ugha tkrk gS rFkk vUnj tkus ij udy lkexzh ij ijh{kk d{k ds ckgj Qasdh gqbZ ik;h tkrh gS vFkok ijh{kk dsUnz ds fdlh deZpkjh }kjk mls tYnh&tYnh bdV~~Bk fd;k tk jgk gks rks ,slh fLFkfr esa lkewfgd udy dh laLrqfr dh tk;xhA ;fn xsV dk rkyk rRdky ugha [kksyk tkrk gS rks mM+kdk ny rkyk rksM+us gsrq vf/kd`r gksaxs A
17. A perusal of Clause (a) reveals that in case the flying squad is having knowledge of the examinees having written their answers on basis of the material provided to them on the blackboard or by dictation from a book, they were to make recommendation for holding an enquiry into the charge of mass copying. On the other hand, in case the flying squad itself finds the examinees writing the answer script from unauthorised material or by access from internet or electronic gadgets, it had been invested with the power to make recommendation of mass copying. Clause (c) states that cheating in group shall be inferred when the examinees were found keeping unauthorised material with them or using the same or found throwing it. Similarly, when the main gate of the examination centre is found closed and resistance is offered to the flying squad to enter the examination centre, the flying squad was to infer mass copying having taken place. Apart from it, Clause 7 (discussed in earlier part of the judgment) stipulates that in case examinees are found taking the examination before or after the prescribed time, it shall be concluded that mass copying had taken place. Under Clause 8, in case the answer scripts are seized from a place outside the examination centre, it shall be inferred that mass copying had taken place.
18. A perusal of the guidelines issued to the flying squad reveals that where the flying squad itself finds the examinees writing the answer script by employing unauthorised means as in Clause 6 (b), (c) and in cases where resistance is offered to the entry of the flying squad (Clause [e]) and under Clause 7 and 8 it has been invested with the power to make recommendation of mass copying having taken place. Since under all these contingencies the offending act takes place in the presence of the flying squad, it had been invested with the power to directly make a recommendation of mass copying having taken place. However, under Clause (a) where the flying squad had only derived knowledge of certain offending act having taken place, which if proved may lead to an inference of mass copying, it was obliged to make a recommendation to hold an enquiry in that regard.
19. The guidelines framed by the University does not empower the flying squad to compare the answer sheet of the students or to infer mass copying having taken place on basis of such comparison even where none of the above discussed clauses are attracted. However, in the opinion of the Court, that itself is not sufficient to hold that the report which was submitted by the flying squad was beyond its competence and is to be discarded as a waste paper. Concededly, the members of the flying squad were the faculty members of the University. This Court can easily assume that they are highly qualified though in subjects other than maths. They had enough competence to arrive atleast at a prima facie conclusion, if not conclusive, that the answers given to certain questions by most of the candidates are identical. In the impugned order it is admitted that the members of the flying squad are not expert in the field of maths but the Vice Chancellor has held that they had sufficient competence to recommend action being taken based on inference that answers to certain questions were given in identical manner by most of the students. The guidelines framed by the University are not exhaustive nor could be, as there may be large number of modes by which mass copying could take place which could not be visualised or comprehended at the time of framing of the guidelines. Thus, this Court has no hesitation in holding that although the flying squad was not invested with the power to make a comparison of the answer sheets of various students but once it had carried out such an exercise and submitted a report, it should have been given due credence. However, at the same time, since the members of the flying squad were not experts in the field of maths and therefore, the proper course for the University was to get an enquiry conducted on the basis of the report of the flying squad or to obtain a specific report in that regard from the examiner evaluting the answer scripts.
20. During the pendency of the writ petition, this Court directed the University to produce the original answer scripts of the students who had appeared in the examination at the petitioner institution. On 10.3.2016, the following order was passed:-
"In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 26.2.2016, the original record has been produced by the University before this Court which includes the answer script of the students, who had appeared in the examination at the petitioners' institution.
According to the report of the Flying Squad, answers to question no.1 and question no.8 (a) and (b) were found to be identical.
It is vehemently submitted before this Court that Flying Squad was not competent to come to the conclusion that answers were given in an identical fashion by all the students. Such conclusion can only be arrived at by the examiner examining the answer scripts.
From few of the copies, which were shown by Sri Vivek Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University, it also does not appear that answers to questions no.1 and 8 were identically given atleast by the students whose copies have been shown to the Court. Even the marks awarded to them are different.
Sri Ravi Kant, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Vivek Verma appearing on behalf of the University submitted that in order to ensure that no student becomes victim of the charge of mass copying, without such charge being firmly established, the University proposes to get the copies examined by an expert body and place its report before this Court within 10 days.
In view of such statement, the matter is adjourned for 10 days.
In case the University is getting the copies examined by an expert body, it is desirable that the examiner should be an expert in the field and should be from some other University, so as to rule out the element of bias.
Put up in the additional cause list on 29.3.2016.
The original record produced before this Court is returned to Sri Vivek Verma for being transmitted to the University for taking required action."
21. The University, on the basis of the statement made by it before this Court, got the copies of the students who had taken examination at the petitioner institution on 7.5.2015 evaluated by Dr. Satya Dev Singh, Principal of D.A.V. College, affiliated to Banaras Hindu Vishwavidyalaya, Banaras. Concededly, he is an expert in the field of maths. The report given by Dr. Satya Dev Singh, after evaluating the answer scripts, submitted before this Court in a sealed cover, was opened in Court. He evaluated 98 answer scripts and found that answers to question nos. 1 (a) and (d) and 8 (b) given by the students are substantially the same. It is found that except student bearing roll number 69015040160 who had not attempted question 1 (a) at all and the student having roll number 69015040214 who has answered it correctly by following the correct procedure, the remaining students had answered question 1 (a) incorrectly. Even the mistakes committed by them were found to be identical. It has been noted that the value of ∑ was /ˉn+1=∫0∞e-t tn+1-1dt, whereas all students have attempted the question by mentioning the value of ∑ as ∫0∞e-t tn-mdt. Similarly, in respect of question 1 (d) candidates with roll numbers 69015040214, 40036, 35 and 40131 had solved it correctly and candidate with roll number 40107 had not attempted the said question, all other students had solved it wrongly. Among those whose answers are incorrect, except 9 students, all students had committed identical mistakes and also arrived at the same wrong conclusion ∞, whereas the correct answer was 1. Similarly, in respect of question 8 (b) except 12 students, all remaining students had followed the same incorrect procedure and had arrived at the same wrong answer. In the said question the value of y was f (x), whereas all students had answered by mentioning the value of y as f (t). Accordingly, the expert has inferred that most of the students having given wrong answer to questions 1 (a), 1 (d) and 8 (b) by following the same wrong procedure, the charge of mass copying stands established. He has further concluded that the knowledge of the students in maths was found to be insignificant judging them by B.Sc. standard.
22. Once the report of the expert has come on record before this Court, it cannot shut its eye or ignore the report altogether. From the report of the expert it is evident that most of the students have not only answered question 1 (a), 1 (d) and 8 (b) incorrectly but the answers had been solved by employing wrong value of the constant. While solving a question of mathematics correctly, there are fair chances that many of the students may follow the same steps and procedure. However, it is not possible that most of the students would arrive at the same incorrect answer and that too by following the same incorrect procedure.
23. It is the prime responsibility of the University to ensure purity of the examination so as to preserve the sanctity of the examinations. Holding of the examination without unauthorised means being employed by the students at the examination is the prime responsibility of the University. It is necessary for maintenance of standards of education and also to ensure that the meritorious students take stride over less deserving. In case unauthorised means are employed by an examinee during the examination, the final result would fail to assess the level of understanding of students as well as the interse merit amongst the examinees. Thus, the very object for which the examination is conducted shall stand defeated. This Court, in the face of the report of the expert which has been placed on record, is therefore unable to accept the contention of the petitioners that the charge of mass copying levelled against the institution is wholly bogus. However, at the same time, this Court desist from drawing any final conclusion on the basis of such report which has been produced before this Court for the first time without the petitioner institution being given an opportunity to have its say on the same. For such purpose, this Court considers it desirable to remit the matter back to the Vice Chancellor for providing an opportunity to the petitioner institution to submit its objection, if any, against the report of the expert Dr. Satya Dev Singh dated 28.3.2016, and to pass fresh order after considering the objection.
24. The other aspect of the matter which still requires to be considered is as to whether the University was justified in imposing the penalties in the fact situation obtaining above. It is not disputed before this Court that in case charge of mass copying stands established, as per the guidelines laid down by the University to deal with such cases, the Examination Committee would be justified in imposing penalty of Rs.3 lacs and in debarring the institution from being designated as an examination centre for next three years. However, the other punishment imposed by the Examination Committee namely, cancellation of the entire result of all the students requires a consideration. It is clear from the stand taken in the writ petition that the result of all students who had appeared in the exam at the petitioner institution in Maths II Paper of B.Sc. 1st Year was alone placed under UFM category and not in other papers. In cases of mass copying, it is difficult to identify the students who had indulged in mass copying from those who had not employed such means. It is for the said reason that the University has provided for cancellation of result of all the students in the concerned subject. However, as a result of cancellation of the examination in the concerned subject, even those students who may not have indulged in mass copying also suffer. Even in the instant case, from the report of Dr. Satya Dev Singh, it transpires that atleast one student with roll number 69015040214 had answered the questions correctly by following the correct procedure. He has not written the answers in the manner identical to other students. Can such a student, who seems to be a very meritorious student, having answered even those questions correctly which almost all other students had answered incorrectly, should be made to suffer? The answer is an emphatic 'no'.
25. It is apposite to note that the Examination Committee being conscious of the said aspect had in a subsequent meeting dated 6.7.2015 resolved to declare the result of those students who had not indulged in mass copying after the institution deposits the first instalment of the penalty imposed. Under the same resolution, the penalty was permitted to be deposited in two instalments. This, in the opinion of the Court, will mitigate the hardship of those students who had not indulged in mass copying. However, this Court does not find any justification for declaration of result of such students being made dependent on deposit of the first instalment of the penalty by the institution. The fate of such students cannot be made dependent on it. These students cannot be made to suffer merely because their examination centre was in the petitioner institution where other students had indulged in use of unfair means. It is noticeable that on the fateful day, the examinees taking examination at the petitioner institution were not only the students of the petitioner institution but also the students of one other institution viz. Ram Karan Maha Vidyalaya, Bhimpura, Ballia.
26. Ordinarily, these questions which touches upon the fate of the students are required to be considered only when the students approach this Court themselves or through the Principal of the institution, but since the order is a composite one, and learned counsel for the parties had addressed these issues also at length, therefore, this Court does not consider it proper to leave these issues unresolved. It is not clear from the pleadings whether the result of the remaining students had been declared by the University or not as per the decision of the Examination Committee dated 6.7.2015. Counsel for the University also could not explain as to how the University had or would identify those who had indulged in mass cheating from those who had not.
27. On a query made by the Court to learned counsel for the University as to how it proposes to mitigate the hardship of such meritorious student who cannot be held guilty of the charge of mass copying, learned counsel for the University, on the basis of instructions received, had made a statement before this Court on 17.5.2016 that the University undertakes to hold a re-examination of the students in the paper in which there was allegation of mass copying and that such examination would be held before holding of the next regular examination.
28. In view of the foregoing discussion and the statement of learned counsel for the University, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be served in disposing of the writ petition with the following directions:-
(a) The petitioner institution shall have the opportunity to file objections, if any, against the report of Dr. Satya Dev Singh dated 28.3.2016 within two weeks from today before the Registrar of the University. The Vice Chancellor shall thereafter pass a fresh order, after taking into consideration the entire material on record including the report of Dr. Satya Dev Singh dated 28.3.2016 and the objections, if any, received from the petitioner institution. In case objections are not filed by the petitioner institution within the time stipulated above, it shall be open to the Vice Chancellor to pass order without granting any further time.
(b) In case the charge of mass copying is found to be established and the University is able to identify the student who had indulged in mass copying, only result of such examinees shall be cancelled. In respect of the remaining examinees, their result shall be declared forthwith, as per decision of the examination Committee dated 6.7.2015, but without any precondition.
(c) In case the University is unable to identify the students who had indulged in mass copying from those who had not indulged in mass copying, it shall be open to it to hold a re-examination of all the examinees as per the undertaking given before this Court.
(d) The holding of the re-examination of the examinees is without prejudice to any action which the University is competent to take against the institution in case the charge of mass copying is found to be established against it.
29. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 11.7.2016 SL