Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kovi Rakesh vs Dr. Ntr University Of Health ... on 9 April, 2021
Bench: Arup Kumar Goswami, C.Praveen Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
W.A.Nos.123, 132, 147, 148, 149, 150, 152, 153, 154,
155, 156 and 198 of 2021
(Taken up through video conferencing)
W.A.No.123 of 2021
Kovi Rakesh, S/o Dr. K. Ramana Kumar,
Aged 20 years, Occ: Student,
R/o H.No.5-91-18/2, III lane,
Lakshmipuram, Guntur, A.P.
.. Appellant
Versus
Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences,
Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada-520008,
Rep. by its Registrar and others.
.. Respondents
Counsel for appellant : Mr. C. Raghu
Counsel for respondent Nos.1&2 : Mr. Guttapalem Vijaya Kumar
W.A.No.132 of 2021
Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences,
Rep. by its Registrar,
Vijayawada, Krishna District.
.. Appellant
Versus
Kovi Rakesh, S/o Dr. K. Ramana Kumar,
Aged about 20 years, Occ: Student,
R/o H.No.5-91-18/2, III lane,
Lakshmipuram, Guntur District
and another.
.. Respondents
Counsel for appellant : Mr. Guttapalem Vijaya Kumar
Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. C. Raghu
2
HCJ& CPK,J
W.A.No.123 of 2021 & batch
W.A.No.147 of 2021
The Vice Chancellor & Controller of Exams,
Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences,
Vijayawada, Krishna District and another.
.. Appellants
Versus
Paladugu Mytreya, S/o P. Sivarama Krishna,
Aged about 21 years, Occ: Student,
R/o D.No.2-4-2, 2nd Lane, Stambalagaruvu,
Near Library, Guntur, Guntur District and others.
.. Respondents
Counsel for appellants : Mr. Guttapalem Vijaya Kumar
Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. N. Ashwani Kumar
Counsel for respondent No.2 : GP for Higher Education
W.A.No.148 of 2021
The Vice Chancellor & Controller of Exams,
Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences,
Vijayawada, Krishna District, A.P. and another.
.. Appellants
Versus
B. Kranti Kalyan Reddy, S/o B. Venkata Rami Reddy,
Aged about 22 years, Occ: Student,
R/o D.No.2-3-10, Pattabhipuram,
Guntur, Guntur District and others.
.. Respondents
Counsel for the appellants : Mr. Guttapalem Vijaya Kumar
Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. N. Ashwani Kumar
Counsel for respondent No.2 : GP for Higher Education
W.A.No.149 of 2021
Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences,
Vijayawada, Krishna District,
Rep. by its Registrar and another.
.. Appellants
Versus
N. Mohith Sai Umesh Chandra,
3
HCJ& CPK,J
W.A.No.123 of 2021 & batch
S/o N. Srikanth Babu, aged about 20 years,
Occ: Student, R/o D.No.680 (6-190/1),
Srinagar Colony, 3rd Lane, Kurnool Road,
Sri Sai Aparna Nilaya, Plot No.1,
Opp: Petrol Bunk, Ongole,
Prakasam District, A.P and others.
.. Respondents
Counsel for the appellants : Mr. Guttapalem Vijay Kumar
Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. N. Ashwani Kumar
Counsel for respondent No.2 : GP for Higher Education
W.A.No.150 of 2021
The Vice Chancellor & Controller of Exams,
Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences,
Vijayawada, Krishna District and another.
.. Appellants
Versus
Samanthapudi Lakshmi Tejaswi,
D/o. Samanthapudi Venkata Siva Rama Raju,
Aged about 22 years, Occ: Student,
R/o D.No.21-8-40, G.S. Raju Road,
Mutyalampadu, Vijayawada,
Krishna District, A.P.-522006 and others.
.. Respondents
Counsel for appellants : Mr. Guttapalem Vijaya Kumar
Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. N. Ashwani Kumar
Counsel for respondent No.2 : GP for Higher Education
W.A.No.152 of 2021
K. Rishit, S/o K. Nageswara Rao,
Aged 20 years, R/o D.No.4-14-227/1,
KNR Hospital, Anjaneyapet,
Opp: Medical Hospital,
Chandramouli nagar, Guntur,
Andhra Pradesh -522007.
.. Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Department of Higher Education,
Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati
and others.
4
HCJ& CPK,J
W.A.No.123 of 2021 & batch
.. Respondents
Counsel for appellant : Mr. N. Ashwani Kumar
Counsel for respondent No.1 : GP for Higher Education
Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3 : Mr. Guttapalem Vijaya Kumar
W.A.No.153 of 2021
P. Mytreeya, S/o P. Sivarama Krishna,
Aged 21 years, R/o D.No.2-4-2,
2nd Lane, Stambalagaruvu, Near Library,
Guntur, Andhra Pradesh -522006.
.. Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Department of Higher Education,
Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati
and others.
.. Respondents
Counsel for appellant : Mr. N. Ashwani Kumar
Counsel for respondent No.1 : GP for Higher Education
Counsel for respondents Nos.2 & 3 : Mr. Guttapalem Vijaya Kumar
W.A.No.154 of 2021
N. Mohith Sai Umesh Chandra,
S/o N. Srikanth Babu, Aged about 20 years,
Occ: Student, R/o D.No.680(6-190/1),
Srinagar Colony, 3rd lane, Kurnool Road,
Sri Sai Aparna Nilaya, Plot No.1,
Opp: Petrol Bunk, Ongole,
Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh.
.. Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh
Rep. by its Principal Secretary
Department of Higher Education,
Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati
and others.
.. Respondents
Counsel for appellant : Mr. N. Ashwani Kumar
Counsel for respondent No.1 : GP for Education
5
HCJ& CPK,J
W.A.No.123 of 2021 & batch
Counsel for respondents Nos.2 & 3 : Mr. Guttapalem Vijaya Kumar
W.A.No.155 of 2021
B. Kranti Kalyan Reddy, S/o B. Venkata Rami Reddy,
Aged about 22 years, Occ: Student,
R/o D.No.2-3-10, Pattabhipuram,
Guntur, Andhra Pradesh-522006.
.. Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh
Rep., by its Principal Secretary
Department of Higher Education,
Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati
and others.
.. Respondents
Counsel for appellant : Mr. N. Ashwani Kumar
Counsel for respondent No.1 : GP for Education.
Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3 : Mr. Guttapalem Vijaya Kumar
W.A.No.156 of 2021
S. Pudi Lakshmi Tejaswi,
D/o S. Pudi Venkata Siva Rama Raju,
Aged 22 years, R/o D.No.21-8-40,
G.S. Raju Road, Mutyalam Padu,
Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh-522006.
.. Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Department of Higher Education,
Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati
and others.
.. Respondents
Counsel for appellant : Mr. N. Ashwani Kumar
Counsel for respondent No.1 : GP for Education
Counsel for respondents Nos.2 & 3 : Mr. Guttapalem Vijaya Kumar
6
HCJ& CPK,J
W.A.No.123 of 2021 & batch
W.A.No.198 of 2021
The Vice Chancellor & Controller of Exams,
Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences,
Vijayawada, Krishna District, A.P. and another.
.. Appellants
Versus
K. Rishit, S/o K. Nageswara Rao,
Aged about 21 years, R/o D.No.4-14-227/1,
KNR Hospital, Anjaneyapet,
Opp: Medical Hospital, Guntur,
Guntur District, and others.
..Respondents
Counsel for appellants : Mr. Guttapalem Vijaya Kumar
Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. N. Ashwani Kumar
Counsel for respondent No.2 : GP for Higher Education
Date of hearing : 01.04.2021
Date of pronouncement : 09.04.2021
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)
Heard Mr. C. Raghu and Mr. N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel
for the writ petitioners. Also heard Mr. Guttapalem Vijaya Kumar,
learned counsel for Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences (for short, 'the
University').
2. In the appeals filed by the writ petitioners, Mr. Guttapalem Vijaya
Kumar appears for the University and the learned Government Pleader
for Higher Education appears for the State. In the appeals filed by the
University, Mr. C. Raghu appears for the writ petitioner in W.A.No.132 of
2021 and Mr. N. Ashwani Kumar appears for the writ petitioners in
W.A.Nos.147, 148, 149, 150 and 198 of 2021 and the learned
Government Pleader for Higher Education appears for the State.
7
HCJ& CPK,J
W.A.No.123 of 2021 & batch
3. All these appeals were listed together and they were analogously
heard. As the core issues raised in the appeals filed by the writ
petitioners are same and so also the core issues raised in the appeals
filed by the University, all these appeals are being disposed of by this
common judgment.
4. It is also to be noted at this juncture that though separate
judgments dated 17.02.2021 were delivered by the learned single
Judge, the substratum of the judgments is one and the same.
5. The Special Observer appointed during 2nd MBBS theory
examinations at Guntur Medical College, Guntur, reported that on
07.11.2020, Mogili Nagendra Babu, Bhavanam Kranthi Kalyan Reddy,
Kamireddy Rishit, Kovi Rakesh, Nuthalapati Mohith Sai Umesh Chandra,
Paladugu Mytreeya and Samanthapudi Lakshmi Tejaswi, students of
Katuri Medical College, were found copying during Microbiology Paper-II
examination in the examination hall with the help of using printed
material and thus, were resorting to malpractice. A common Memo
dated 12.11.2020 was issued by the Controller of Examinations of the
University, asking the above students as to why their appearance from
the examination should not be cancelled and why they should not be
debarred from appearing for the examination and for prosecuting
further studies for the misconduct and requiring them to submit their
explanation to him within seven days from the date of receipt of Memo,
making it clear that if the explanation of the candidates did not reach
the office on or before the specified date, the cases will be disposed of
on the basis of the material already available. A request was made to
the Principal of Katuri Medical College to serve the Memo to the
candidates and to obtain acknowledgement.
8
HCJ& CPK,J
W.A.No.123 of 2021 & batch
6. For the present, suffice it to say that explanations were submitted
and thereafter, individual orders dated 24.11.2020 were communicated
to the students by the Controller of Examinations stating that the
Malpractice Committee of the University, which had met on 24.11.2020,
after considering the Special Observer's report, explanation of the
students and the materials seized from them, came to the conclusion
that the students were guilty for possessing forbidden material into the
examination hall and that the Vice Chancellor of the University, after
taking into the report of the Chief Superintendent and Special Observer,
explanation of the students and the recommendations of the Malpractice
Committee, had come to the conclusion that the ends of justice would
be met by awarding punishment of disqualifying the students for a
period of one year including November, 2020 examination, thereby
imposing the said punishment.
7. Challenging the aforesaid orders, Kovi Rakesh, Bhavanam Kranthi
Kalyan Reddy, Kamireddy Rishit, Nuthalapati Mohith Sai Umesh
Chandra, Paladugu Mytreeya and Samanthapudi Lakshmi Tejaswi,
approached this Court by filing separate writ petitions under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, which were registered as W.P.Nos.22670 of
2020, 23530 of 2020, 24326 of 2020, 23011 of 2020, 24325 of 2020
and 24328 of 2020, respectively.
8. It is not clear whether Mogili Nagendra Babu had approached this
Court by filing a writ petition or whether he had accepted the
proceedings dated 24.11.2020.
9. By separate orders, all dated 17.02.2021, the learned single
Judge set aside the proceedings dated 24.11.2020 imposing punishment
9
HCJ& CPK,J
W.A.No.123 of 2021 & batch
and giving liberty to the University to issue fresh show-cause notice to
the writ petitioners along with the copy of the report of the Special
Observer dated 07.11.2020, copy of the materials seized from the
petitioners and the copy of the letters addressed by the petitioners
accepting their guilt and after obtaining explanation from the
petitioners, to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
10. W.A.No.123 and 132 of 2021 have arisen in respect of the order
dated 17.02.2021 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.22670
of 2020 and W.A.No.123 of 2021 is filed by the writ petitioner-student,
while W.A.No.132 of 2021 is filed by the University.
11. W.A.Nos.154 and 149 of 2021 have arisen in respect of an order
dated 17.02.2021 passed by a learned single Judge in W.P.No.23011 of
2020. W.A.No.154 of 2021 is filed by the writ petitioner-student, while
W.A.No.149 of 2021 is filed by the University.
12. W.A.Nos.153 and 147 of 2021 have arisen in respect of an order
dated 17.02.2021 passed by a learned single Judge in W.P.No.24325 of
2020. W.A.No.153 of 2021 is filed by the writ petitioner-student, while
W.A.No.147 of 2021 is filed by the University.
13. W.A.Nos.155 and 148 of 2021 have arisen in respect of an order
dated 17.02.2021 passed by a learned single Judge in W.P.No.23530 of
2020. W.A.No.155 of 2021 is filed by the writ petitioner-student, while
W.A.No.148 of 2021 is filed by the University.
14. W.A.Nos.156 and 150 of 2021 have arisen in respect of an order
dated 17.02.2021 passed by a learned single Judge in W.P.No.24328 of
2020. W.A.No.156 of 2021 is filed by the writ petitioner-student, while
W.A.No.150 of 2021 is filed by the University.
10
HCJ& CPK,J
W.A.No.123 of 2021 & batch
15. W.A.Nos.152 and 198 of 2021 have arisen in respect of an order
dated 17.02.2021 passed by a learned single Judge in W.P.No.24326 of
2020. W.A.No.152 of 2021 is filed by the writ petitioner-student, while
W.A.No.198 of 2021 is filed by the University.
16. The case presented by the writ petitioner in W.P.No.22670 of
2020 is that he is a student of 2nd year MBBS course in Katuri Medical
College and was appearing in the referred batch for the examinations
relating to pathology and microbiology. While writing Microbiology
Paper-II on 07.11.2020, he found a slip near the table and brought the
same to the notice of the invigilator. He along with others was asked
to leave the examination hall and he was not allowed to appear in
theory of Pharmacology subject. He received a Memo dated 12.11.2020
issued by the University, alleging that he was involved in copying with
the help of printed material and asking him to submit an explanation.
Pursuant thereto, he submitted his explanation on 18.11.2020.
Thereafter, the University passed an order dated 24.11.2020, imposing
punishment of disqualifying the petitioner for a period of one year
including November, 2020 examination.
17. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Registrar of the University, it
is stated that the writ petitioner was appearing for Pathology,
Microbiology and Pharmacology examinations of 2nd year MBBS course
at Katuri Medical College. It is stated that one Mrs. Dukkipati Kalyani,
Associate Professor, Siddhartha Medical College, Vijayawada, was
appointed as Special Observer to look after the proceedings of the
theory examinations at Guntur Medical College, Guntur. She had
reported commission of malpractice by the writ petitioner in the
prescribed proforma along with the explanation of the writ petitioner,
11
HCJ& CPK,J
W.A.No.123 of 2021 & batch
wherein the student himself had given consent that he was caught
committing malpractice. On the basis of the report of the Special
Observer dated 07.11.2020, along with the seized material, i.e., hall
ticket, answer script and written material which was taken from the writ
petitioner by the Special Observer, the University issued a Memo dated
12.11.2020 through the Principal, Katuri Medical College,
Chinakondrupadu, whereby the writ petitioner along with six other
students were directed to explain as to why their appearance from the
examination should not be cancelled and why they should not be
debarred from appearing for the examination and for prosecuting
further studies for their misconduct, within a period of seven days.
Pursuant thereto, the writ petitioner submitted his explanation. It is
further stated in the counter-affidavit that the answer script which was
given to the writ petitioner contained a heading 'INSTRUCTIONS TO
THE CANDIDATES', in which under instruction No.10, it was clearly
stated that "copying in any form is a very serious offence, carrying
severe punishment. Do not carry any written or printed matter, pagers,
cell phones and any other electronic gadgets in any form to the
examination hall". Sections 2 and 3 of Andhra Pradesh Public
Examinations (Prevention of Malpractices and Unfair Means) Act, 1997
(for short, 'the Act of 1997'), are extracted in the counter-affidavit. It is
further stated that as per Rule 3 of the Standing Orders of the Executive
Council of the University, if during a university examination, a candidate
is found in mala fide possession of any material, such as, papers, books
or notes or written notes on any part of the clothes worn by the
candidate or on any part of his body, or table or desk, or foot rule and
for instruments like set squares, protractors, slide rules etc., with notes
12
HCJ& CPK,J
W.A.No.123 of 2021 & batch
written on them, which is relevant to the subject of the examinations,
he shall be disqualified from appearing in any University examination for
one year including that in which he is found guilty. It is also stated that
a Committee of Malpractices was constituted vide letter dated
16.03.1995 by the Executive Council of the University to examine the
issue relating to malpractices as per the records furnished by the special
observer and it is for the Committee to decide whether the candidate is
guilty or not guilty.
18. It is further stated that the Malpractice Committee of the
University met on 24.11.2020 and after considering Special Observer's
report, explanation of the candidate and materials seized from the
student, the Committee came to the conclusion that the petitioner was
found guilty for possessing forbidden material into the examination hall
and the Vice-Chancellor of the University, after taking into account the
report of the Chief Superintendent and Special Observer, explanation of
the student and the recommendations of the Malpractice Committee,
has come to the conclusion that ends of justice would be met by
awarding the punishment of disqualifying the petitioner for a period of
one year including November, 2020 examination.
19. The case presented by the writ petitioners in W.P.Nos.23011 of
2020, 24325 of 2020, 23530 of 2020, 24328 of 2020 and 24326 of 2020
is same. They stated that while appearing for Microbiology Paper-II, the
Chief Superintendent/Special Observer present at the examination hall
had suddenly snatched their answer sheets and hall tickets alleging that
they were carrying printed material with them. Despite submitting that
they were not carrying any printed material, they were not allowed to
finish the examination and they were forced to sign on some blank
13
HCJ& CPK,J
W.A.No.123 of 2021 & batch
pages. They submitted their explanations to the Memo dated
12.11.2020 issued by the University. Thereafter, the University passed
individual orders dated 24.11.2020, imposing punishment of
disqualifying them for a period of one year including November, 2020
examination.
20. The stand taken by the University in the aforesaid writ petitions is
more or less the same as taken in W.P.No.22670 of 2020.
21. Learned counsel for the University submits that the learned single
Judge was not correct in setting aside the proceedings dated 24.11.2020
inasmuch as on due consideration of the relevant materials, including
the report of the Special Observer, explanation of the candidates and
materials seized from the candidates, conclusion was drawn that the
writ petitioners were guilty of possessing forbidden material into the
examination hall and accordingly, punishment was imposed. He has also
submitted that the writ petitioners themselves admitted their own guilt
of having committed malpractice and therefore, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, principles of natural justice are fully complied
with and no case was made out by the writ petitioners for directing
issuance of a fresh show-cause notice to them in terms of the directions
contained in the impugned orders of the learned single Judge. He
strenuously urged that the petitioners have taken contradictory stands
while acknowledging guilt of committing misconduct when they were
caught red-handed and in the explanations furnished by them in
pursuance of the Memo dated 12.11.2020 and that itself demonstrates
the hollowness of the claim made by the petitioners that they are not
guilty of committing any malpractice. It is also submitted by him that
there is no reason as to why the Special Observer would single out the
14
HCJ& CPK,J
W.A.No.123 of 2021 & batch
writ petitioners if they had not committed the malpractice of copying.
There is no doubt that the petitioners had committed unfair means as
defined in the Act of 1997. Reliance is placed by him on Instruction
No.10 in the Instructions given to the candidates to contend that the
candidates were warned beforehand that carrying of any printed
material and any electronic gadgets, such as cell phone etc. in any form
to the examination hall is a serious offence carrying severe punishment.
Accordingly, it is submitted by him that the order(s) of the learned
single Judge are liable to be set aside.
22. On the other hand, Mr. C. Raghu and Mr. N. Ashwani Kumar,
learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, submit that when,
admittedly, the report of the Special Observer dated 07.11.2020, the
papers seized from the petitioners, memos issued by the petitioners
allegedly accepting their guilt, were not furnished to the petitioners,
thereby violating the principles of natural justice, learned single Judge,
in a matter of the present nature, ought not to have granted liberty of
initiation of fresh proceedings as the authorities may now create
evidence to substantiate their action. Placing reliance on Rule 3 of the
Standing Orders of the Executive Council, it is submitted that even
assuming that some papers were seized from the petitioners, there is
not a whisper that such papers are relevant to the subject of the
examinations and in absence thereof, it cannot be said that the writ
petitioners had resorted to unfair means and had committed
malpractice. Reliance is placed on a judgment of the Division Bench of
the High Court at Hyderabad in the case of V. Amarnath v. Board of
Intermediate Education, Hyderabad, reported in 2002 (3) ALD
191, to contend that the learned single Judge, after setting aside the
15
HCJ& CPK,J
W.A.No.123 of 2021 & batch
order imposing punishment, should not have permitted the authorities
to initiate fresh proceedings.
23. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for
the parties and have perused the materials on record.
24. It will be relevant to take note of the notice issued to the
petitioners in the form of a Memo dated 12.11.2020. The same reads as
follows:
"Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, A.P., Vijayawada-8
F.No.2901/E1A/MP/MBBS/2020 Dated: 12.11.2020
MEMO
Sub:- Dr. NTR UHS - Exams - Second MBBS
examinations held in November, 2020 -
Malpractice cases reported against the following
students of Katuri Medical College,
Chinkondrupadu at clubbed center of Guntur
Medical College, Guntur - Explanation called for
- Regarding.
Ref: Report of the Special Observer of Examinations
dated 07-11-2020.
-------
The Special Observer appointed during second MBBS
theory examinations at clubbed center of Guntur Medical
College, Guntur on 07-11-2020 found that the following
students of Katuri Medical College, Chinakondrupadu are
copying during Microbiology Paper - II examination in the
examination hall with the help of using printed material. As
such the Special Observer has reported malpractice case. The
details of the students are given below:
Sl. Hall Ticket Name of the Candidate
No. No.
HCJ& CPK,J
W.A.No.123 of 2021 & batch
1. 0961059 Mogili Nagendra Babu
2. 17061013 Bhavanam Kranthi Kalyan
Reddy
3. 17061053 Kamireddy Rishit
4. 17061069 Kovi Rakesh
5. 17061101 Nuthalapti Mohith Sai Umesh
Chandra
6. 17061103 Paladugu Mytreeya
7. 17061124 Samanthapudi Lakshmi Tejaswi
In this regard all the above students are hereby
directed to explain as to why their appearance from the
examination should not be cancelled and why they should not
be debarred from appearing the examination and for
prosecuting further studies for their misconduct. They should
submit their explanations within 07 days from the date of
receipt of this memo to the undersigned.
If the candidates explanations does not reach this
office on (or) before by the specified date the cases will be
disposed off on the basis of material already available with
this office.
The candidates should acknowledge the receipt of this
memo.
CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS"
25. The explanations furnished by the writ petitioners are as follows:
"I Kovi Rakesh with Reg no:17061069 appeared for the
2nd MBBS exam at Guntur Medical College as the centre. I
HCJ& CPK,J
W.A.No.123 of 2021 & batch
wrote my pathology exam and Microbiology 1st paper. While
writing my 2nd paper of microbiology, after 20 min the vice
principal of Guntur medical college announces to give any slips
having with the students and I found a slip adjacent to the
table on the ground and I brought to the attention of
invigilator. At this juncture vice principal took my paper and
prevented me to write the exam. You can check my paper if I
had copied from the slip. Sir I am victimized for the faulty
decision. I plead you to kindly go through the matter and see
that the exam is conducted again and my pathology exam
which I have already written is taken into consideration. Sir this
exam is my future sir. I lost my exam previously with just 1
mark and now this severe punishment will ruin my life along
with this suffering of my parents. Please conduct exam and
help me by doing justice." (W.P.No.22670 of 2020)
"I Paladugu Mytreeya of Katuri Medical College with
Reg. No.17061103 appeared for the 2nd year MBBS
supplementary examinations at Guntur Medical College. I was
alleged for malpractice in Microbiology paper 2 exam which
was not done by me. I was completely and thoroughly checked
by staff before entering the exam hall and was confirmed that I
was not carrying any printed or written material. As the exam
is going on there is a sudden check up by the incharge
principal of Guntur Medical College. She announced that to
hand over any slips if carrying. There was a slip lying down
apart from me which I brought into their attention by calling
the near by attender. But the incharge principal misunderstood
HCJ& CPK,J
W.A.No.123 of 2021 & batch
this and booked me into this issue. If you doubt me please
verify my answer sheet. My answer sheet was forcefully ceased
without my concern and they forced me to write the statement
in their words and made me sign. I am victimized by this
situation. So please look into this issue. The severe punishment
as mentioned in the memo will ruin my life. So please help me
by making justice. I request you to conduct a re-examination
as I am losing my pathology exam which was already written
and my pharmacology exam which was not allowed by the
special observer. So, kindly allow me for the further exams."
(W.P.No.24325 of 2020)
"I am Bhavanam Kranthi Kalyan Reddy, student of 3rd
year MBBS in Katuri Medical College, Guntur. I appeared for
the second year MBBS examinations conducted in November,
2020 with Hall ticket Regd. No.17061013 at Guntur Medical
College, Guntur examination centre. On 07.11.2020 while I was
appearing for the examination, the invigilator took away my
hall ticket and alleged that I was involving in malpractices.
Even after repeatedly requesting him for returning my hall
ticket as I did not resort to any malpractice, I was sent out of
the examination without even heading to my requests. With
regard to the Memo issued to me vide F.No.2901/
E1A/MBBS/2020 dated 12.11.2020; I humbly submit that the
show cause memo is bereft of any details about the alleged
malpractice committed by me. It simply mentions that I was
copying from some printed material. However, the memo does
not disclose the type of alleged material was found, the alleged
HCJ& CPK,J
W.A.No.123 of 2021 & batch
place from which it was recovered or the relevancy of the
printed material to the examination which I was appearing.
Further the report of Special Observer of the examinations
dated 07.11.2020 on which the reliance is placed in the memo
dated 12.11.2020 is not supplied to me. Again humbly submit
that I did not resort to any malpractice and the action resorted
by the Invigilator and the Special Observer are vindictive in
nature and only to falsely implicate me. Therefore, I kindly
request you to withdraw the Memo issued vide
F.No.2901/E1A/MBBS/2020 dated 12.11.2020 against me and
allow me to appear in the practical examinations which are
going to commence from December, 2020."
(W.P.No.23530 of 2020)
"My name is S.Lakshmi Tejaswi and I am studying 3rd
year MBBS at Katuri Medical College and my Regd.
No.17061124. I was appearing for my 2nd year supplementary
exams at Guntur Medical College. On 7.11.2020, while I was
writing my microbiology exam paper 2 along with students of
other colleges suddenly external observer came to my seat and
found a small folded printed material near my table. The
observer accused me of copying from that printed material. I
pleaded with the observer many times and requested her to
please check whatever material was found with my answer
sheet. The observer insisted that if I was not copying, I will not
have any problem and that I should sign the same. In that
confusion and my naivety, I had to sign whatever observer
asked me to. I was sure that my answer sheet will make things
HCJ& CPK,J
W.A.No.123 of 2021 & batch
clear and I would be free of any malpractice accusation. Sir,
with due respect I would like to affirm that I would never put
the reputation of my college and my credibility at stake. I have
always abided by the rules of the college. I am already
heartbroken that I couldn't complete my supplementary exams.
I plead with you to give me a chance to prove my credibility
and request you to save my future. I hope that you shall verify
the facts and spare my from any punishment and restore my
credibility." (W.P.No.24328 of 2020)
"I, Kamireddy Rishit Reg. No.17061053 appeared for
2nd paper of Microbiology exam, 2nd year MBBS supplementary
exam at Guntur Medical College on 7.11.2020. I entered into
exam hall at right time after completely checked by concerned
staff and was confirmed that I was not carrying any type of
printed material by them. I did not move any where after
taking my seat for my exam. While I'm writing my exam, some
special observers came to me, showed some slips and by
assuming that those belongs to me, they prevented me from
writing all other exams also. The punishment mentioned in the
memo will spoil my life. So please kindly help me and allow me
to write next exams." (W.P.No.24326 of 2020)
"I am Nuthalapati Mohith Sai Umesh Chandra, student of
3rd year MBBS in Katuri Medical College, Guntur. I appeared
for the second year MBBS examinations conducted in
November, 2020 with Hall ticket Regd. No.17061101 at Guntur
Medical College, Guntur examination centre. One month prior
HCJ& CPK,J
W.A.No.123 of 2021 & batch
to the said examinations I got tested positive for COVID-19 and
I did not recover by the time of examinations. I have appeared
to the second year MBBS examinations with the symptoms by
taking proper care, hygiene and safety measures. On
07.11.2020 while I was appearing for the examination, the
invigilator took away my hall ticket and alleged that I was
involving in malpractices. Even after repeatedly requesting him
for returning my hall ticket as I did not resort to any
malpractice, I was sent out of the examination without even
heading to my requests. With regard to the Memo issued to me
vide F.No.2901/E1A/MBBS/2020 dated 12.11.2020; I humbly
submit that the show cause memo is bereft of any details
about the alleged malpractice committed by me. It simply
mentions that I was copying from some printed material.
However, the memo does not disclose the type of alleged
material was found, the alleged place from which it was
recovered or the relevancy of the printed material to the
examination which I was appearing. Further the report of
Special Observer of the examinations dated 07.11.2020 on
which the reliance is placed in the memo dated 12.11.2020 is
not supplied to me. Again humbly submit that I did not resort
to any malpractice and the action resorted by the Invigilator
and the Special Observer are vindictive in nature and only to
falsely implicate me. Therefore, I kindly request you to
withdraw the Memo issued vide F.No.2901/E1A/MBBS/2020
dated 12.11.2020 against me and allow me to appear in the
HCJ& CPK,J
W.A.No.123 of 2021 & batch
practical examinations which are going to commence from
December, 2020." (W.P.No.23011 of 2020)
26. The letters given by the writ petitioners to the Special Observer,
admitting guilt, are as follows:
"I, Rakesh, attending supplementary exam at Guntur Medical
College. Hall Ticket No.17061069. I was attempted
malpractice in the exam and caught. I voluntarily submitted
the ones to them.
Yours Faithfully,
K. Rakesh
Mobile - 9494676761.
(W.P.No.22670 of 2020)
"Respected Madam,
I, P Mytreeya of Reg. No.17061103 brought some
papers related to the examination by mistake. I feel sorry for
my mistake and negligence. I will never repeat such an
activity again. Please consider me for this time and kindly
forgive me.
Yours obediently,
Sd/- P Mytreeya, 17061103 - Contact No. 701320102".
(W.P.No.24325 of 2020)
"Sir/Madam,
I, B. Kranthi Kalyan Reddy, 17061013 writing supplementary
exam in Guntur Medical College voluntarily submitted a
printed material that I had to the squad that has come to the
HCJ& CPK,J
W.A.No.123 of 2021 & batch
exam hall. Sir I apologize for such kind of behavior from me. I
promise that I will not repeat again in future. Please forgive
me for such kind of behavior.
Yours sincerely,
Sd/- B Kranthi Kalyan Reddy, Mobile No.7730878898".
(W.P.No.23530 of 2020)
"Respected Madam,
I, S Lakshmi Tejaswi, came to Guntur Medical College to write
exam supplementary exams and was caught for malpractice. I
am ashamed of my act and would never repeat it ever again.
Please excuse me for this time.
Yours sincerely,
Sd/-S Lakshmi Tejaswi, Contact No.9866727989 - 17061124".
(W.P.No.24328 of 2020)
"Respected Madam,
I, Kamireddy Rishit, Reg.No.17061053 came Guntur Medical
college to write supplementary exams and was caught for my
mal practice. I apologize for my mistake and promise that this
will never happen.
Yours sincerely,
Sd/- K Rishit, Mobile No.863969632".
(W.P.No.24326 of 2020)
"Madam,
HCJ& CPK,J
W.A.No.123 of 2021 & batch
I, N.Umesh, 17061101 was carrying a slip and got caught
while exchanging. Due to Covid, I have done it and I am
extremely sorry for doing such kind of malpractice. I promise
that I will never repeat it again and kindly requesting for
apologies.
Yours obediently,
Sd/- Umesh, Hall Ticket No.17061101,
Mobile No.8919945418".
(W.P.No.23011 of 2020)
27. It is also appropriate to take note of the proceedings dated
24.11.2020 in respect of one of the petitioners as, fundamentally, all
proceedings dated 24.11.2020, are same, save and except particulars
relating to the specific student concerned. It reads as follows:
"Mr. Kovi Rakesh, Regd.No.17061069, Katuri Medical
College, Chinakondrupadu has appeared for II MBBS
examinations held in November 2020.
During the above examination while writing
Microbiology Paper-II examination on 07.11.2020 Mr. Kovi
Rakesh, was caught possessing of printed material by the Spl.
Observer appointed by the Dr. NTR UHS, Vijayawada.
The Chief Supdt/Spl. Observer immediately seized the
Hall-Ticket and forbidden material and did not allow the above
student to continue the examination and sent a report to the
Dr. NTR UHS, Vijayawada.
Mr. Kovi Rakesh, Regd.No. 17061069, was directed to
explain as to why his appearance from the examination should
not be cancelled and why he should not be debarred from
HCJ& CPK,J
W.A.No.123 of 2021 & batch
appearing the examination conducted by the University and
for prosecuting further studies for his misconduct vide this
office memo No.2901/E1A/MBBS/MP/2020, dated 12.11.2020.
In response to this, he has submitted his explanation vide
letter dated 18.11.2020.
The case was placed before Malpractice Committee of
Dr. NTR UHS, Vijayawada, which met on 24-11-2020, after
considering Special Observer report, explanation of the
candidate and material seized from the student, the
committee came to the conclusion that Mr. Kovi Rakesh,
Regd.No.17061069 was found guilty for possessing
forbidden material into the examination hall.
The Hon'ble Vice-Chancellor, Dr. NTR UHS, Vijayawada
after taking into account the report of the Chief
Superintendent and Special Observer, explanation of the
student and the recommendations of the Malpractice
Committee has come to the conclusion that ends of justice
would be met by awarding the punishment of disqualifying
Mr. Kovi Rakesh, Regd.No.17061069 for a period of one year
including November, 2020 examination.
Accordingly the above punishment is hereby imposed."
28. The word 'Unfair means' is defined in Section 2(f) of the Act of
1997, which reads as follows:
"'Unfair means' in relation to an examinee appearing in
a public examination means the unauthorised help from any
person in any manner or from any material written, recorded,
printed or reproduced in any form whatsoever or the
HCJ& CPK,J
W.A.No.123 of 2021 & batch
unauthorised use of any telephonic, wireless or electronic or
other instrument or gadget in any manner."
29. In terms of the said definition, amongst others, receiving of
unauthorized help from any material, written or printed or reproduced in
any form, would come within the meaning of using unfair means.
30. Rule 3 of the Standing Orders of the Executive Council, dealing
with punishment for use of unfair means, reads as follows:
"If during a university examination, a candidate
is found in mala fide possession of any material such as,
a) papers, books or notes or
b) Written notes on any part of the clothes worn by
the candidate or on any part of his body, or table or
desk; or
c) Foot-rule and for instruments like set squares,
protractors, slide rules, etc., with notes written on them;
which is relevant to the subject of the examinations, he
shall be disqualified from appearing in any University
examination for one year including that in which he is
found guilty."
31. Thus, if a candidate is found in mala fide possession of any
material as indicated in the Rules, which is relevant to the subject
examination, he shall be disqualified from appearing in any of the
University examination for one year including that in which the
candidate is found guilty.
HCJ& CPK,J
W.A.No.123 of 2021 & batch
32. The reasoning of the learned single Judge for the conclusion is
found in paragraph 14 in W.P.Nos.22670, 24325, 23530, 24328 and
24326 of 2020 and paragraph 15 in W.P.No.23011 of 2020. The
reasoning in W.P.Nos.24325, 23530, 24328, 24326 and 23011 of 2020 is
same. Therefore, it will be relevant to reproduce paragraph 14 of
W.P.No.22670 of 2020 and paragraph 14 of W.P.No.24325 of 2020:
"14. As seen from the said explanation, petitioner
found a slip adjacent to the table on the ground and brought
it to the notice of the invigilator. In the impugned order, even
though explanation filed by the petitioner is referred to, it
does not deal with the same and it does not also say that
printed material which was allegedly seized from the
petitioner, by the Special Observer was relevant to the subject
examination. Copy of the printed material that was allegedly
seized from the petitioner was not supplied to the petitioner,
to prove that it was relevant to the subject examination. Copy
of the report of the Special Observer ought to have been
supplied to the petitioner along with notice to give an effective
representation." ( W.P.No.22670 of 2020)
"14. In the impugned order, even though explanation
filed by the petitioner is referred to, it does not deal with the
same and it does not also say that printed material which was
allegedly seized from the petitioner, by the Special Observer
was relevant to the subject examination. Copy of the printed
material that was allegedly seized from the petitioner was not
supplied to the petitioner, to prove that it was relevant to the
subject examination. Copy of the report of the Special
HCJ& CPK,J
W.A.No.123 of 2021 & batch
Observer ought to have been supplied to the petitioner along
with notice to give an effective representation."
(W.P.No.24325 of 2020)
33. The fact that printed material which was allegedly seized from
the writ petitioners and the report of the Special Observer were not
supplied to the writ petitioners is an admitted fact. The proceedings
dated 24.11.2020 refers to possession of forbidden material by the writ
petitioners. To disqualify a student from appearing in any University
examination, as per Rule 3 of the Standing Orders of the Executive
Council of the University, possession of any material such as papers,
books, notes etc., have to be relevant to the subject of the examination.
The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the University that
in the face of the admission of guilt by the writ petitioners, learned
single Judge ought to have dismissed the writ petitions, cannot be
accepted for the reason that if the admission of guilt was itself
sufficient, then there would have been no necessity to issue a
show-cause notice to the writ petitioners to furnish explanation. The
report of the Special Observer and the material seized from the writ
petitioners form the foundation of the allegation that the writ petitioners
had committed malpractice and the same having not been furnished,
the writ petitioners did not have the opportunity to meet the foundation
of the allegations. We are also of the considered opinion that the
argument of the learned counsel for the writ petitioners that the writ
petitions ought to have been allowed without giving liberty to the
University to issue fresh show-cause notice, is without any merit. The
fact that the writ petitioners had in some form or the other
acknowledged committing of malpractice would be evident from the
HCJ& CPK,J
W.A.No.123 of 2021 & batch
letters given to the Special Observer, which are reproduced in
paragraph 26 of the judgment. In the show-cause notice in the form of
memo dated 12.11.2020, no explanation was called for with regard to
the aforesaid aspect. In such circumstances, we are unable to agree
with the contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioners that
the course adopted by the learned single Judge cannot be sustained in
law. The apprehension expressed that the University may resort to
manipulation of materials does not commend for our acceptance. We
are of the considered view that the learned single Judge had balanced
the competing equities and we see no good ground to interfere with the
judgment(s) dated 17.02.2021 passed in the writ petitions.
34. In Amarnath (supra), the Court held that the appellant was a
victim of circumstances. He behaved like a disciplined boy when he
found some papers lying on the floor. He brought the same to the notice
of the Invigilator, who, in turn, brought it to the notice of the
Superintendent. The Superintendent stated that the squad member, in
spite of protest by the student and the invigilator, insisted that the
student had committed malpractice and though initially he had refused
to refer the case to the Malpractice Committee, on being pressurized by
the squad member, he had to ultimately refer the case. The Court had
also taken note of the submission of the Government Pleader appearing
for the Board that if the results of the appellant were published, he
would have topped the list of the successful candidates in the entire
State. Thus, the facts of Amarnath (supra) are entirely different from
the facts of the present batch of writ petitions.
35. Though the orders of punishment were set aside by the learned
single Judge, when the petitioners prayed for permission to pay
HCJ& CPK,J
W.A.No.123 of 2021 & batch
examination fee and to appear for the 2nd year examinations scheduled
to be commenced from 15.03.2021, prayers of the petitioners were
rejected on the ground that there was no specific direction in the orders
passed by the learned single Judge.
36. In the writ appeals preferred by the writ petitioners, on different
dates, various interim orders were passed permitting the writ petitioners
to appear in the said examination providing that result of such
examination shall not be declared and the same shall abide by the
outcome of the appeals. It was also made clear that the petitioners shall
not be entitled to any equities.
37. Since as of date, there is no order imposing punishment for any
misconduct, we direct that the result of the examinations taken by the
petitioners pursuant to the orders passed in the appeals shall be
declared. If pursuant to the liberty granted by the learned single Judge,
further proceedings are taken by the University in the light of the
directions contained in the orders of the learned single Judge and if it is
established that the writ petitioners had committed malpractice, the
University may pass appropriate orders imposing punishment in
accordance with law.
38. In view of the above discussions, we find no merit in the appeals
filed by the University as well as by the writ petitioners.
39. Resultantly, the writ appeals are dismissed with the observations
and directions as indicated above. No order as to costs. Pending
miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
IBL/Nn/MRR
HCJ& CPK,J
W.A.No.123 of 2021 & batch
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
W.A.Nos.123, 132, 147, 148, 149, 150, 152, 153, 154,
155, 156 and 198 of 2021
Dt: 09.04.2021
IBL/Nn/MRR
