Pathak, C.J. (Actg.).:- This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against three resolutions of the Executive Council of the University by which certain disciplinary proceeding has been taken against th3 petitioner for infringement of some University Examination Rules, 2. The short facts giving rise to the present petition are that in 1979 the petitioner was a candidate from M. C. College, Barpeta for his B.A. Examination. On the allegation that the petitioner carried certain manuscript loose sheets in his pocket which was detected by one of the invigilators, a show-cause notice was given to him. The petitioner showed cause by stating that it was a fact that there were certain loose manuscript papers in his pocket which he carried for the last minute preparation for the examination but forgot to keep those away due to nervousness. His explanation did not prevail with the University Authority and consequently by a resolution dated 31.12.79 the examination of the petitioner was cancelled. The relevant resolution of the University reads as follows which is annexed as Annexure 3'; "University of Gauhati. Orders passed by the Executive council by Resolution No. 675/3/79 (f) dated 31.12.79 with regard to the cases of condidates who used unfair means in the B.A. (Two Year) Examination, 1979. 1. The examination of the following candidates have been cancelled. 2. All candidates excepting Nos. 2,8,12,20,21,22,29,3034, 36 and 41 have been debarred from appearing at any University Examination until 1981. Sl. No. Roll No. Name of the candidate. Name of the College. 8. 1359 Narahari Das M.C- College. Sd./-M.C. Sarrna, i/c Academic Registrar-cum-Controlier of Examinations, G.U." Serial No. 8 in the resolution is that of the petitioner. His 1979 examination was cancelled; but he was not debarred from appearing at any University examination. 3. After the aforesaid resolution the petitioner wanted to appear in the examination and he approached the principal of the College but he was not given the application form for the examination. It is found that the Executive Council by two subsequent resolutions dated 20.2.81 as well as 21.2.81, the punishment in­flicted on the petitioner was enhanced. These two resolutions read as follows: "University of Gauhati. Orders passed by the Executive Council by Resolution No. 79/6/81 dated 20.2.81 with regard to the cases of candidates who violated the University Rules in the B. A. (Two Year) Examination, 1979. 1. These two resolutions read as follows: "University of Gauhati. Orders passed by the Executive Council by Resolution No. 79/6/81 dated 20.2.81 with regard to the cases of candidates who violated the University Rules in the B. A. (Two Year) Examination, 1979. 1. The Examination of the following candidates have been cancelled and they have been debarred from appear­ing at any University Examination untill 1980. SI. No. Roll No. Name of the candidate. Name of the College. 1. 1359 Narahari Das M. C. College, Barpeta. Sd/-............ Controller of Examinations Gauhati University." "Gauhati University, Orders passed by the Executive Council by Resolution No. 79/6/81 dated 20.2.81 and 21.2.81 with regard to the cases of candidates who violated the University Rules in the B. A. (Two Year) Examination, 1979. 1. The examination of the following candidates have been cancelled and they have been debarred from appearing at two subsequent examination of 1980 and 1981 of G. U. SI. No. Roll No. Name of the Candidate. Name of the College. 1. 1359 Narahari Das M. C. College Barpeta. The previous notification issued vide this office No. Ex/with held/BA (Two Yr.)/14/81/6003-102 dtd. 23.2.81 be treated as can­celled, Sd/- M. N. Barua, Controller of Examination, Gauhati University." 4. On perusal of these two resolutions we do not find any fresh material for which the punishment against the petitioner was enhanced or varied from that which was given in Annexure 3% that is, in the earlier resolution of 1979. No fresh charge or proceeding appears to have been placed before, or considered by, the Executive Council. We have noted that by the resolu­tion dated 31.12.79 the petitioner's 1979 examination was can­celled, but by the resolution dated 20.2.81 the 1979 examination of the petitioner has been cancelled and he has also been debarred from appearing at any University Examination until 1980. In the subsequent resolutions dated 20.2.81 and 21.2.81 the exa­mination of the petitioner has been cancelled and he has further been debarred from appearing at two subsequent University examinations of 1980 and 1981. These resolutions do not show that there were any subsequent charges or special materials so as to justify variation of the order passed by the earlier resolu­tion dated 31.12.79 by which only the examination of the peti­tioner for the year 1979 was cancelled. 5. We have gone through the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the University. These resolutions do not show that there were any subsequent charges or special materials so as to justify variation of the order passed by the earlier resolu­tion dated 31.12.79 by which only the examination of the peti­tioner for the year 1979 was cancelled. 5. We have gone through the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the University. From the said affidavit-in-opposition it transpires that on the evening of 4.5.79 on which date the petitioner was detected of having carried with him some manuscript loose sheets, the invigilator Prof. Babul Chandra Bakali was assaulted. It is the admitted fact that no charge was given against the petitioner that he was anyway involved in the alleged assault on the aforesaid professor. In that view of the matter, we are of firm opinion that the two resolutions-one dated 20.2.81 and the other one dated 21.2.81 are in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice; and, consequently, these two resolu­tions are not sustainable in law; and accordingly they are liable to be set aside and quashed which we accordingly do. 6. Mr. B. Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University has submitted that the University Authority is at liberty to enhance the punishment earlier inflicted on the petitioner on the same material. We are clearly of opinion that unless there is fresh charge of which the examinee is given notice and reasonable opportunity of being heard, the earlier resolution which was passed by the University on the charge earlier given, could not have been varied to the prejudice of the examinee, in violation of the principles of natural justice. By virtue of this Court's order dated 6.4.81, the, petitioner was allowed to appear in the subsequent B.A. Examination from 20.4.81 and the petitioner appeared in that examination. How­ever, his result has been kept withheld as directed by this Court by the aforesaid order. The first resolution of the University only cancelled the petitioner's examination of 1979. In view of our decision the subsequent resolutions dated 20.2.81 and 21.2.81 are quashed. Therefore, the result of the subsequent B.A. examination of the petitioner may now be announced by the University forthwith. 7. In the result, the petition is allowed to the extent indica­ted above. The Rule is made absolute. In the facts and circum­stances of the case, we pass no order as to costs.