Uttarakhand High Court
8 February vs Gb Pant University Of Agriculture And ... on 18 February, 2026
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2026:UHC:1064
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 2555 of 2025
18 February, 2026
Aryansh Singh
--Petitioner
Versus
GB Pant University Of Agriculture And Technology &
another
--Respondents
With
Writ Petition Misc. Single No.2545 of 2025
Arjita Bora
--Petitioner
Versus
GB Pant University Of Agriculture And Technology &
others
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. C.K. Sharma and Ms. Priyanka Agrawal, learned counsel for
the petitioner(s).
Mr. Satyendra Singh Lingwal, learned counsel for the respondents
(appeared through V.C.).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Since these two writ petitions involve common facts and questions of law, they are being decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order. For the sake of convenience, facts of WPMS No.2555/2025 are alone being considered.
2. By means of WPMS No.2555/2025, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 13.08.2025 passed by the Registrar of respondent no.1 University, whereby the petitioner has been debarred from the second 1 2026:UHC:1064 semester of the B.Tech (Electronics and Communication) course for the academic year 2023-24, pursuant to the decision of Hon'ble Vice Chancellor (Annexure No.6).
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent no.2 to reconsider and relax the punishment imposed upon the petitioner, in the same manner as extended to other similarly situated students alleged to have used unfair means, keeping in view the petitioner's academic future."
3. The case, as culled out from the pleadings of the parties, is that petitioner Aryansh Singh was pursuing a course, i.e., B.Tech (Electronics and Communication). When he was appearing in the examination of the 3rd Year, 6th Semester, he was found indulging in unfair means during the said examination. The allegations were that he had scribbled something on the palm of his left hand. Consequently, he was debarred from the 3rd Year vide order dated 27.08.2024. The petitioner moved this Court by filing WPMS No. 2482 of 2024. By virtue of the interim order passed in the said petition, the petitioner was provisionally permitted to complete 6th Semester of 3rd Year and the 7th Semester and the 8th Semester of the 4th Year. Thereafter, vide order dated 06.06.2025, the said petition was allowed after setting aside the impugned order dated 27.08.2024, and the respondent Vice-Chancellor was directed to take a lenient view in the matter as per the guidelines given by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mr. Udit Singh vs. Vice Chancellor, Govind Ballabh Pant University, Pantnagar and another, passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 499 of 2017 dated 23.03.2017. Now, the respondent University, vide order dated 13.08.2025, which is impugned in the writ petition, 2 2026:UHC:1064 directed the petitioner to write the examination of the 6th Semester of the 3rd Year again. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 13.08.2025, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. It has been pleaded by the petitioner in the writ petition that discrimination is being done by the respondent University, inasmuch as similarly situated students who were using unfair means were exonerated and have been issued the mark sheets for the entire course.
5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent-University wherein it has been stated that action has been taken against the petitioner as per the rules and regulations of the University and to maintain discipline among the students. It is further stated that the respondent-University has considered the case of the petitioner with leniency, and he was directed only to write the examination of the 6th Semester of the 3rd Year instead of the whole year. So far as the allegation of discrimination as stated by the petitioner is concerned, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent- University that parity cannot be claimed, as the cases of those students stood on a different footing.
6. The rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner in WPMS No. 2545 of 2025 in which it has been stated that the Vice-Chancellor did not adopt a proper and fair process and applied different yardsticks to similarly situated students and, by adopting a pick-and- choose method, took different decisions in cases of similarly situated students.
32026:UHC:1064
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court again takes note of the guidelines given by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Udit Singh (supra), wherein it has been provided that student matters should be considered very leniently. Para 8 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:-
"8. Under these circumstances, what has to be seen by this Court is that when a student is charged of using unfair means in the final examination, then the evidence against the student must be clinching and unrebuttable. In other words, from the evidence on record, there could be no other conclusion possible but the fact that under these circumstances the student has done nothing but having indulged in unfair means. The Discipline Committee, all the same, has not examined any evidence available before it in order to give its finding with regard to the conclusion that the petitioner has used unfair means in the examination. The conclusion drawn by the Discipline Committee is based on the fact that the petitioner himself has admitted to the use of unfair means."
8. Even otherwise, as per the allegation levelled against the petitioner, something was found scribbled on the petitioner's palm, and there is nothing in the inquiry to indicate whether the material scribbled on his palm was used during the examination or not. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the action of the respondent-University in directing the petitioner to write the examination afresh for the 6th Semester of the 3rd Year of the course, vide impugned order dated 13.08.2025, appears to be very harsh.
9. Since the petitioner has already appeared in the 6th Semester of the 3rd Year pursuant to the interim 4 2026:UHC:1064 order passed by this Court, and was earlier declared to have passed the said semester, though the result was subsequently withheld after passing of the impugned order, in such view of the matter, both the writ petitions deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the same are allowed. The impugned order(s) dated 13.08.2025 in both these writ petitions are hereby quashed.
10. The respondent-University is directed to issue the mark sheet of the entire course to the petitioner(s) in both the writ petitions forthwith, but not later than two weeks from today.
11. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 18.02.2026 A.Kaur 5