Kerala High Court
Gouri Kochumadathil vs The University Of Kerala on 18 August, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
W.A.No.1407 of 2025 2025:KER:61253
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 27TH SRAVANA, 1947
WA NO. 1407 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.06.2025 IN WP(C) NO.20058 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN WPC:
GOURI KOCHUMADATHIL
AGED 21 YEARS
D/O. SAGETH R, THIRUVATHIRA, NADAKKAVU P.O.,
UDAYAMPEROOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682307
BY ADVS.
SRI.N.ANAND
SHRI.RAJESH O.N.
SHRI.AMEER SALIM
SHRI.ROY ANTONY
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WPC:
1 THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
STATUE P.O, SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PALAYAM
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
PIN - 695037
2 MAR IVANIOS COLLEGE (AUTONOMOUS)
MAR IVANIOS VIDYA NAGAR, NALANCHIRA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL,
PIN - 695015
2
W.A.No.1407 of 2025 2025:KER:61253
3 CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION
MAR IVANIOS COLLEGE (AUTONOMOUS) MAR IVANIOS VIDYA
NAGAR, NALANCHIRA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695015
SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM
SRI.AJITH GEORGE KOOLA
SRI. THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, KERALA UNIVERSITY
THIS WRIT APPEAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 04.08.2025, THE COURT
ON 18.8.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
3
W.A.No.1407 of 2025 2025:KER:61253
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
This writ appeal is filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High
Court Act, 1958, by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.20058 of 2025,
challenging the judgment dated 03.06.2025, whereby the learned
Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of
certiorari to quash Ext.P9 order dated 17.02.2025 issued by the
3rd respondent to the extent it cancels appellant's semester III and
V, UG examinations of November-December 2024, conducted by
respondents 2 and 3 and also a writ of mandamus commanding
respondents 2 and 3 to declare the appellant's result in semester
III and V, UG examinations.
2. The appellant was a student of the three-year B.A.
Analytical Economics Course at the 2 nd respondent College. She
cleared all subjects of the first five semesters, except the third
semester Hindi examination paper of Grammar, Communicative
Hindi and Information Technology. The appellant applied for the
supplementary examination of the failed Hindi paper and
W.A.No.1407 of 2025 2025:KER:61253
improvement examination of two subjects viz., Statistical Tools for
Economics and Intermediate Micro Economics. She appeared in
the supplementary examination of Grammar, Communicative
Hindi and Information Technology on 22.11.2024 and completed
the exam. But while appearing for the improvement exam in
Statistical Tools for Economics on 25.11.2024, she was caught
using unfair means, since she wrote a few equations on the back
of her hall ticket. According to the appellant, though she
immediately erased the equations from the hall ticket before the
question paper was served, while erasing, the Invigilator
apprehended her and accused her of malpractice. The Invigilator
reported it to the Examination Chief; and from there to the
Controller. The college authorities did not permit her to write the
examination for Statistical Tools for Economics. The college
authorities further did not allow her to attend the 2 nd improvement
examination of the subject Intermediate Micro Economics. Along
with the appellant, the Controller of Examinations proceeded
against 22 other students for examination malpractice, on reasons
varying, including possessing written materials, writing answers
W.A.No.1407 of 2025 2025:KER:61253
on hand, for possessing mobile phones, etc. The Controller of
Examinations summoned the appellant along with her mother, and
during the hearing, he remarked to the mother of the appellant
that the appellant was caught red-handed for writing on the back
side of the hall ticket. The appellant then submitted an apology
letter, and she had also agreed to pay a total hearing fee of
Rs.3,030/-. On 13.05.2025, when the appellant, along with her
mother went to the College to enquire about the proceedings, the
Controller informed her that all the examinations attempted by
her were cancelled and so results of her Hindi supplementary
examination would not be announced and handed over Ext.P9
order dated 17.02.2025 issued by the Controller of Examinations
to the appellant. Challenging Ext.P9, the appellant approached
this Court with the writ petition as stated above.
3. In the writ appeal, the 2nd respondent filed a counter
affidavit dated 20.06.2025 opposing the reliefs sought in the
appeal and producing therewith Exts.R2(a) to R2(h) documents.
To that counter affidavit, the appellant filed a reply affidavit dated
03.07.2025.
W.A.No.1407 of 2025 2025:KER:61253
4. After hearing both sides and appreciation of materials on
record, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by the
judgment dated 03.06.2025, holding that when the disciplinary
committee constituted by the College has found the appellant to
have used unfair means in the examination and the punishment
imposed is in accordance with the examination rules, this Court
has no scope to interfere in the punishment awarded to the
appellant and others.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the
learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and also the learned
counsel for the 1st respondent University of Kerala.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant would argue that
from Ext.P9 order dated 17.02.2025 issued by the 3 rd respondent
Controller of Examinations, it could be seen that the same
punishment was imposed on all the 23 students, including the
appellant, against whom attempted malpractices were reported.
Against some of the students, the allegation of malpractice was
serious than that of the appellant. The punishment imposed on
her by cancelling all her examinations attempted is not
W.A.No.1407 of 2025 2025:KER:61253
proportionate to the allegation. The learned counsel would further
submit that when some writings were found in the hall ticket while
the appellant was in the examination hall for attending a particular
examination, there is no justification for cancelling all the
examinations attempted by her. In fact, the respondents have no
case that the appellant brought something written on the hall
ticket. The appellant scribbled something in the hall ticket before
the examination, and she had even tried to erase those writings,
and it was at that time she was caught by the Invigilator.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the College
would submit that the punishment of cancellation of all the
examinations attempted by the appellant is in consonance with
the provisions under the Kerala University First Statutes of 1977.
Moreover, there is a clause entered in the hall ticket itself which
says that candidates are prohibited from writing upon the hall
tickets. Any candidate found violating any of the rules in the
conduct of examinations will be liable for cancellation of the
examination taken by the candidate. The learned Single Judge
rightly dismissed the writ petition, and no interference is
W.A.No.1407 of 2025 2025:KER:61253
warranted with that judgment by this Court by exercising the
appellate jurisdiction, since no sufficient ground is made out by
the appellant to say that there is any illegality or impropriety in
that judgment.
8. The learned counsel for the 1 st respondent University
would submit that the 2nd respondent is an autonomous College
and hence examinations are conducted by the College itself.
9. While the appellant was attending the examination of
Statistical Tools for Economics on 25.11.2024, the Invigilator
caught her for malpractice, for the reason that she had written the
formulas on the back side of the hall ticket. According to the
appellant, she had written those formulas in the hall ticket for the
purpose of refreshing her memory. During the enquiry by the
Controller of Examinations, the appellant wrote Ext.R2(e) letter
wherein she had admitted that she had committed malpractice
during semester III improvement examination, by writing on the
back side of the hall ticket.
10. As per Chapter XIV of Ext.R2(c) Exam Manual of
University of Kerala, malpractices in the University Examinations
W.A.No.1407 of 2025 2025:KER:61253
include any act or acts by a candidate or by his/her agents
performed with the intention of gaining undue advantage in the
evaluation, resorting to unfair means during the examination or
afterwards. Causing obstruction of the smooth conduct of
examination, preventing others from appearing for the
examination, causing interruption in their performance at the
examination and tampering with the records of the examination
are also included within the purview of malpractice. Different
types of malpractices and punishments for them, as decided by
the Syndicate, are provided in that Chapter. As far as the
introduction of any material relevant to the examination,
inadvertently within the hall, the punishment prescribed is
debarring for one or two chances. Similarly, introduction of any
material relevant to the examination, willfully with the intention of
copying and possession of the same within the hall, is liable for
punishment of debarring for three chances. In the instant case,
the Academic Council of the College, in its 15th Academic Council
meeting, took Ext.R2(b) decision on 30.04.2024 wherein it was
decided to approve the rule to cancel all the examinations in that
W.A.No.1407 of 2025 2025:KER:61253
semester of students who were caught for malpractice in a
particular semester.
11. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel
for the College invited our attention to Clause (xxiv) of Chapter
VI of the Kerala University First Statutes 1977 which says that if a
candidate is found guilty of using or attempting to use unfair
means at an examination or a report is made as to any candidate
having copied either from some book or note or from the answers
of another candidate or in any other manner or of helping or
receiving help from another candidate in an examination, the
syndicate may cancel his/her examination and also debar him /her
appearing at the examination of the University for one or more
years according to the nature of the offence committed by the
candidate.
12. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on a
judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 08.11.2013 in
W.A. Nos.1411 of 2013 and other connected writ appeals to argue
that the punishment of cancelling all the examinations when
malpractice is detected only in one examination as too harsh. But
W.A.No.1407 of 2025 2025:KER:61253
while going through the judgment of the Division Bench, we notice
that the basis for malpractice alleged in that case is the pattern
found in respect of the answers given by the students in one paper
out of the four papers. It was on the basis of suspicion,
malpractice was alleged in that case. Based on the peculiar facts
of that cases, the Division Bench affirmed the view taken by the
learned Single Judge on the basis that the wrongdoing was
essentially detected only in respect of one of the papers and hence
concurred with the findings of the learned Single Judge that there
is no basis for cancelling the examination in all papers. But in the
instant case, as noted above, the nature of malpractice is
something different, and the appellant had even admitted the
same by writing an apology. Therefore, the judgment of the
Division Bench in W.A. Nos.1411 of 2013 and other connected writ
appeals has no application to the facts of the instant case.
13. The learned counsel for the appellant further relied on
the judgment of the Apex Court in Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh v.
Bihar Legislative Council (through Secretary) and others
[AIR 2025 SC 1276] to argue regarding the proportionality of
W.A.No.1407 of 2025 2025:KER:61253
punishment. But while going through that judgment, we notice
that the issue in that case was connected with unparliamentary
conduct by the petitioner therein, including the use of derogatory
expressions in his capacity as a Member of the Legislative Council
(MLC) within the scope of the Bihar Legislative Council (BLC). At
no stretch of imagination, the facts of that case can be pressed
into service to make it applicable to the instant case.
14. The learned counsel for the appellant has invited our
attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in Commissioner
of Police and others v. Sandeep Kumar [(2011) 4 SCC 644]
to argue that the consideration of young age shall be given to the
appellant. Sandeep Kumar was a case of registration of a
criminal case against a candidate when he was at the age of 20
years old for making a false statement in his application submitted
for the post of Head Constable (Ministerial). Therefore, the facts
of Sandeep Kumar are also not applicable to the instant case.
15. The learned counsel for the College, during the course
of arguments, relied on a judgment of this Court dated 11.08.2014
in W.P.(C)No.27417 of 2013, wherein a learned Single Judge of
W.A.No.1407 of 2025 2025:KER:61253
this Court opined that malpractice in examinations are to be
viewed seriously and has to be discouraged by the University by
imposing appropriate punishments. It is held by the learned
Single judge in that judgment that Malpractices are offences not
only against the system of examination but also are wrongs
committed against other students who work hard to achieve
excellence. In that judgment, the learned Single Judge further
held that the petitioners therein having been found guilty of
malpractice, the University was within its powers to cancel the
entire examination. It was also held by the learned Single Judge
that the facts of W.P.(C)No.15992 of 2013 and connected matters
from which W.A.No.1411 of 2013 and connected matters were
filed, are not applicable to that case.
16. Having considered the pleadings and materials on
record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no sufficient
ground to hold that the punishment imposed on the appellant by
Ext.P9 order dated 17.02.2025 by the 3rd respondent Controller of
Examinations, is against any of the statutory provisions. It cannot
be said as disproportionate to the malpractice detected. There is
W.A.No.1407 of 2025 2025:KER:61253
no circumstance to hold that the learned single judge went wrong
in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant, holding that
the punishment imposed on the appellant is in accordance with
the examination rules. In such circumstances, we find no ground
to interfere with the impugned judgment.
In the result, the writ appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
W.A.No.1407 of 2025 2025:KER:61253
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit.R2(a) True copy of answer paper sheet of the
Appellant
Exhibit.R2(b) Copy of the relevant pages of Academic
Councils decision dated 30-4-2024
Exhibit.R2(c) True copy of the relevant pages of Chapter
XIV statute 24 of the Kerala University First
Statute 1977
Exhibit.R2(d) True copy of the relevant pages of Chapter
VI of University First Statutes 1977
Exhibit.R2(e) True copy of Written apology by Appellant
Exhibit R2(f) True copy of acknowledgment of malpractice
by the appellant in a printed form of the
College
Exhibit.R2(g) True copy of the Minutes of hearing on 20-1-
25 and 12-2-25
Exhibit.R2(h) True copy of the Proceedings of hearing dated
17-2-2025.
