JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, who is a student of LL.B IInd year at Government Autonomous College, Kota, has filed this writ petition against the order dated 17th November, 1990 passed by the Principal of the said College, whereby his LL.B IInd Year Examination of 1990 was cancelled and he was debarred from appearing at any examination for the year 1991. 2. The petitioner has alleged that after passing the M.Com. Examination in the year 1987-88 from the University of Ajmer, he sought admission in LL.B. First Year in 1988-89 in the Government Autonomous College, Kota. He passed the LL.B. First year Examination and was promoted to LL.B. Second Year in the year 1989-90. The petitioner appeared in the said examination of LL.B. 2nd year Exam. 90 from the Government Autonomous College, Kota and was shown absent in the 5th Paper i.e. Public International Law, whereas the petitioner states that he had appeared in the said paper which was held on 21st July, 1990. He has stated that in the mark-sheet of LL.B. 2nd Year Examination, 1990, against the paper of Public International Law he has been shown to be absent. The petitioner has further alleged that the said paper of Public International Law was out of course. As such, the students of the Government Autonomous College, Kota stood up to boycott the same. On intervention of Invigilators and Principal and an assurance to look into the grievance relating to the paper being out of course, the students appeared in the said paper and 15 minutes extra time was allowed to compensate the time lost in the attempt to boycott. The petitioner also stood up after hearing the noise in the room and outside and had thereafter given the paper on intervention of the invigilators and the principal. It is the case of the petitioner that before starting the paper, the invigilators as well as the Principal had pressurised the petitioner to write down in the form that he had made an attempt to snatch the paper from the invigilators; but in fact, no such incident took place. When the petitioner came across the mark-sheet of 2nd Year, 1990 showing him to be absent in the paper of Public International Law, he approached the concerned authorities who assured him to look into the matter. When the petitioner came across the mark-sheet of 2nd Year, 1990 showing him to be absent in the paper of Public International Law, he approached the concerned authorities who assured him to look into the matter. On 17th November, 1990, the Principal of the Government Autonomous College, Kota straightaway passed the punishment order, whereby the petitioner's LL.B. 2nd Year Examination, 1990 was cancelled and he was further debarred from appearing at any examination of the year 1991, without giving any show cause notice and, hence, it is the case of the petitioner that the impugned order was passed against the petitioner without following the principles of natural justice. The petitioner then states that the respondents have not framed any regulations to deal with such kind of cases except the mention made in para 17 of the prospectus of 1990-91 that the students who are found guilty of gross-misconduct or mis-conduct would be liable for disciplinary action in accordance with Ordinance 88 of the University of Ajmer and, even in this Ordinance 88, the punishment of cancellation of the result has not been prescribed. It is against this order dated 17th November, 1990 that the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on 22nd December, 1990.On 10th January, 1991, show cause notice was ordered to be issued to the respondents as to why the writ petition may not be admitted and disposed of. 3. On behalf of the respondents, reply to the show cause notice has been filed in which a preliminary objection has been taken that the petitioner had filed representations. But, he had not placed the copies of the representations on record and thereby he has concealed the important material facts from the court while setting up a case of denial of reasonable opportunity. It is also taken as a part of preliminary objection that the petitioner has concealed the fact of apology on the spot and, thus while he had admitted the fact of snatching of the papers and had apologised for the same, he has made a wrong statement and has tried to pollute the pure fountain of justice. It has also been mentioned as a preliminary objection that in academic matters there should be no interference by this Court. While giving para wise reply the petitioner's case has been sought to be traversed stating that the impugned order has been passed as per law. It has also been mentioned as a preliminary objection that in academic matters there should be no interference by this Court. While giving para wise reply the petitioner's case has been sought to be traversed stating that the impugned order has been passed as per law. There is no violation of any rule or ordinance and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. It has been alleged in the reply that the question paper of Public International Law of LL.B. 2nd Year was scheduled to be held on 21st July, 1990 from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. As per the rules of examination, the candidate is required to show the admission card before entering the examination hall. On 21st July, 1990, there were two invigilators on duty namely Shri M.M. Jain and Shri M.P. Sharma in Room No. 51 where the petitioner was to take the examination. When the invigilator had asked the petitioner to produce and show the admission card, the petitioner refused to show the same and, when the petitioner was not allowed to enter the examination hall on account of non-production of admission card, he behaved in an unruly manner and treatened the invigilator Shri Jain using abusive language and uttered the words, " FkkscM+k cny nwaxk "and the petitioner forcibly entered the examination hall. The invigilator Shri Jain reported the matter to the Vice - Principal S.S. Mathur and, Shri S.D. Kulshreshtha, who were standing in the verandah. Shri Mathur and Shri Kulshreshtha tried to convince the petitioner, but the petitioner paid no heed, rather indulged in discussion with them and started speaking in loud voice and, therefore, the other lecturers on duty - S/Shri Hari Mohan Sharma, S.C. Jain, G.S. Patiyal, S.C. Mehta and G.S. Khinchi also came on the spot. Thereafter the principal of the College also came on the spot. All the Lecturers and the Principal tried to make the petitioner understand, but the petitioner did not listen to them and snatched the bundle of papers from Shri M.P. Sharma - another invigilator and came out from the room in the verandah. The petitioner thereafter returned the papers. This incident took place at 1.55 p.m. i.e. just five minutes before the commencement of the paper. Both the invigilators S/Shri M.M. Jain and M.P. Sharma made a complaint in writing to the Principal. The petitioner thereafter returned the papers. This incident took place at 1.55 p.m. i.e. just five minutes before the commencement of the paper. Both the invigilators S/Shri M.M. Jain and M.P. Sharma made a complaint in writing to the Principal. The Principal who was also the Centre Superintendent reported the case in the prescribed form 39-(E). Column III of this form is regarding candidate's statement. Though, the petitioner had initially refused to give his statement and went away at 3.45 p.m. without giving his statement in Col. No. 111, but within five minutes he came back and gave a statement in Col. III (iii) at p. 3 of the form as under: " eSaus isilZ ds gkFk yxk;k Fkk rFkk gkFk esa ysdj Dykl esa gh Fkk rFkk isilZ okfil fd;kA xyrh ds fy;s ekQ fd;k tkosA vkbUnk ,slk ugha d:axkA " It is the case of the respondents that as per N.B.(ii) at page 3 of this form 39(E), no other representation is required to be considered, the petitioner had also apologised and felt sorry for the misconduct and disorderly behaviour committed by him and, while he was allowed to sit in the examination he was given a second answer book. It was on account of this disorderly conduct of the petitioner that the entire examination of the 5th paper i.e. Public International Law was delayed by 15 minutes later the petitioner was made to sit in the separate room and all the students were given 15 minutes extra time. The report of the Centre Superintendent (Principal of the College), as contained in Form 39 (E), the written complaints/reports of both the invigilators - S/Shri M.M. Jain and M.P. Sharma and written apology of the petitioner in Form 39(E) were submitted to the Unfair Means Committee. The committee considered the entire material, including the statement made by the petitioner, in Form No. 39(E) and found that the act of the petitioner was of gross misconduct and the Committee recommended that the petitioner's present examination of 1990 be cancelled and, he may be debarred from appearing in any examination of 1991. It has also been submitted that the Committee consisted of four members who are retired personnel and the decision of this Committee was conveyed by the Principal of the College to the petitioner. The petitioner then made an application (Annx. It has also been submitted that the Committee consisted of four members who are retired personnel and the decision of this Committee was conveyed by the Principal of the College to the petitioner. The petitioner then made an application (Annx. R/2) to the principal of the College, wherein he again felt sorry for the fault committed by him. The matter was again placed before the Unfair Means Committee for review of the petitioner's application and the petitioner also submitted another application on 5th December, 1990 in writing to the Principal of the College. The Principal marked this application to put before the Unfair Means Committee. A meeting of the Committee was held on 10th Jan., 1991. The Committee considered the case and unanimously opined for no change in the decision taken earlier and reiterated its earlier decision in all the four cases which were reviewed, including that of the petitioner. It has been stated that the petitioner has concealed these important facts from the Court. It has then been stated that so far as the delivery of the mark-sheet to the petitioner is concerned, the same was issued by inadvertence of the staff of the college because normally the candidates against whom a case of use of unfair means, misconduct or disorderly behaviour is made out, the result is withheld till the decision of the Unfair Means Committee and, thus, it is a case of mistake on the "part of the office of the College. It has been stated in para 6 that it is absolutely incorrect that the paper Public International Law was out of course and that all the students of the college had stood up to boycott the same. The petitioner's allegations of giving assurance have also been denied. It has been stated that the story of boycotting the paper on the ground that it was out of course is fabricated. No complaint was ever made by any examinee that the paper was out of course and. even the petitioner had not filed any such complaint, nor did he say so in the statement made by him. Regarding para 17 of the prospectus, it has been submitted in the reply that the same is not applicable as it does not govern the cases relating to examinations. even the petitioner had not filed any such complaint, nor did he say so in the statement made by him. Regarding para 17 of the prospectus, it has been submitted in the reply that the same is not applicable as it does not govern the cases relating to examinations. The Government Autonomous College, Kota is affiliated to the Ajmer University and Ordinance 88 governs the cases of indiscipline and misconduct during the course of study; and not the case of unfair means, indiscipline and unruly behaviour during the course of examination. Document Annx. R/5 has also been placed on record, which is a letter by OSD, Education Gr. IV Department sent to the Principal of the Government Autonomous College, Kota, wherein it has been held out that complete academic autonomy had been conferred on the College and the decision was to be taken at the level of the Principal, Government Autonomous College, Kota. 4. A rejoinder contesting the averments made in the reply has also been filed by the petitioner along with an affidavit of the Invigilator Shri M.P. Sharma to show that the admission card had been shown by the petitioner to him after the petitioner had taken his seat in the examination hall. Affidavits of certain other students have also been filed to show that the paper was difficult and out of course and the students had stood up to boycott the paper, etc. 5. I may first deal with the preliminary objections raised by Shri Prahlad Singh on behalf of the respondents. Shri Prahlad Singh's objection is that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands inasmuch as be has suppressed and concealed the fact that he himself had submitted representations thrice in this matter, and has thereby tried to build up a case of violation of principles of natural justice. The fact that the petitioner had apologised on the spot has also been concealed and while the petitioner had himself made a statement in Column III of the Form 39 (E) that he had taken the papers in his hand, remained in the class and then retuned the papers for which he sought to be pardoned and said that he would not do so in future, yet he has stated in the writ petition that no such incident took place. By doing so, the petitioner has made mis-statement of facts and has tried to pollute the pure fountains of justice and, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. I do feel that the petitioner on the aforesaid vital aspects has not come with full and complete disclosure of the facts, as had happened and has rest contented by stating in para 6 of the writ petition that the invigilators as well as the Principal pressurised him to write down in the form that he had made an attempt to snatch the papers from the invigilator but, as a matter of fact, no such incident took place. This, in my opinion, is not a full disclosure of the facts as that had happened and the relevant information has been withheld. But, I do not propose to dismiss this writ petition on this ground alone as the whole case stands unfurled before me now and the matter was heard at length. The other preliminary objection that in such academic matters, the Court should not interfere and, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable has not impressed me as in appropriate cases the courts have interfered with an umpteen number of occasions and there are reported and un-reported cases on this aspect of the matter and the Court had interfered with. Thus, the preliminary objections raised on behalf of the respondents are disposed of. 6. Shri Kamlakar has submitted that though the respondent College is a Government autonomous college, it is governed by the Ordinances of the University of Rajasthan as adopted by the Ajmer University and, therefore, this College was bound to follow the same. Shri Sharma took me through the Rules of the Government College Society, Kota and referred to Rule 9 dealing with the general superintendence, direction and control of the affairs of the Society which runs this College. Rules 11 and 12 deal with the functions of the Governing Council. Rule 13 is with regard to the procedure of functioning of Governing Council of the College and Rule 14 is with regard to the Principal of the College. Shri Sharma has also referred to statute 37-C as contained in the Hand-book of the University of Rajasthan, Part II Vol. I, which deals with the approved (Autonomous) Institutions. Rule 13 is with regard to the procedure of functioning of Governing Council of the College and Rule 14 is with regard to the Principal of the College. Shri Sharma has also referred to statute 37-C as contained in the Hand-book of the University of Rajasthan, Part II Vol. I, which deals with the approved (Autonomous) Institutions. Statute 37-C(4) is reproduced as under: "Approved (Autonomous) Institutions: 37-C(1) Every approved (Autonomous) Institution shall be a public educational institution. (4) Every Approved (Autonomous) Institution (whether maintained by a Government or a private agency) shall have a Covering Council duly constituted in accordance with the rules laid down by the Syndicate. The Governing Council of the Institution and through it the Head of the Institution shall be responsible for the internal administration of the College. The Heal of the Institution shall have complete freedom in running the institution in consultation with the Governing Council." 7. Reference was also made to Section 24 L of the University of Rajasthan Act, which reads as under: "Autonomy of Approved Institutions : 24-L. Subject to the general powers of inspection, supervision and calling of periodical returns, to be exercised by the University in accordance with the Statutes, approved institutions shall enjoy full autonomy in the matter of prescribing their courses of study and curricula, organisation of their work and in all other academic and administrative matters." 8. On the above premises, it was argued by Shri Kamlakar Sharma that despite the autonomy of the respondent College, the Principal had to authority to pass the impugned order or punishment against the petitioner; the procedure of Ordinance 152 of the University of Rajasthan should have been followed and the syndicate of the University should have still decided the matter notwithstanding the contents of Annexure R/5 dated 10th July, 1990 i.e. the letter of Education (Gr. IV) Department of the Government of Rajasthan to the Principal, Government College, Kota, which reads as under : "Education (Gr. IV) Department No. F. 16(5) Edu. 4/90 Jaipur, dated 10th July, 1990 The Principal, Government College, Kota. IV) Department of the Government of Rajasthan to the Principal, Government College, Kota, which reads as under : "Education (Gr. IV) Department No. F. 16(5) Edu. 4/90 Jaipur, dated 10th July, 1990 The Principal, Government College, Kota. Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter No. 78 dated 22.6.90 on the subject cited above and to say that in view of the decision taken and implemented in the co-ordination Committee of the Principals of Autonomous Colleges whereby complete academic autonomy has been conferred on these colleges, constitution of a common unfair means Committee is not possible. You are therefore advised to take such decision at your end. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (M.L. Sharma) Officer on Special Duty (Hr. Edu.)" 9. I have gone through the various provisions as aforesaid and find that the impugned order of punishment had been passed against the petitioner by the Principal as per the decision of the Committee constituted for the purpose, whereas the respondent is an approved autonomous institution and enjoy full autonomy in academic and administrative matters and the Governing Council of the Institution and through it the Head of the Institution is responsible for the internal administration of the college the Head of the Institution has complete freedom in running the Institution and the Education (GIV) Department of the Government of Rajasthan has also held out in the document Annexure R/5 that in view of the decision taken and implemented in the co-ordinated Committee of the Principals of Autonomous Colleges whereby complete academic autonomy has been conferred on the Colleges and the Principal has been advised to take decision at his own end. I do not find any force in the contention of Shri Kamlakar Sharma that the Syndicate of the University should have still decided the matter. Shri Kamlakar then submitted that the procedure of Ordinance 152 was not followed. It has been stated in the reply that as per the Ordinance 152 (5) (iv) show cause notice is required to be given only if a candidate refused to give his statement on the spot, or leaves the Centre without giving his statement. But, in the present case, the petitioner had made a statement in the form 39(E) on the spot and had admitted his guilt and apologised for the disorderly conduct. The grievance with regard to Note to Ordinance 152 was misplaced. But, in the present case, the petitioner had made a statement in the form 39(E) on the spot and had admitted his guilt and apologised for the disorderly conduct. The grievance with regard to Note to Ordinance 152 was misplaced. Shri Kamlakar Sharma submitted that the copy of form No. 39(E) was not supplied to him and the same was supplied only on the direction being given by the Court; no explanation of the petitioner had been called initially and straightway impugned order had been passed against the petitioner. In substance, the submission of Shri Kamlakar Sharma is that the impugned order had been passed against the petitioner without affording a reasonable opportunity to him and the same is violative of principles of natural justice. The statement made by the petitioner on the spot has been quoted above, in the earlier part of this order. There is ample contemporaneous evidence in the form of the version of the two invigilators- S/Shri M.M. Jain and M.P. Sharma on 21st July, 1990 and the contents of Form No. 39(E) containing the report of the Centre Superintendent dated 21st July, 1990 itself and, there is hardly any scope to disbelieve this contemporaneous evidence which was available on record. There is ample contemporaneous evidence in the form of the version of the two invigilators- S/Shri M.M. Jain and M.P. Sharma on 21st July, 1990 and the contents of Form No. 39(E) containing the report of the Centre Superintendent dated 21st July, 1990 itself and, there is hardly any scope to disbelieve this contemporaneous evidence which was available on record. The version of S/Shri M.M. Jain and M.P. Sharma, as was reported by them on 21st July, 1990 to the Principal, as was placed for my perusal by the counsel for the respondent is produced as under : " izpk;Z egksn;] jktdh; egkfo|ky;] dksVkA ekU;oj] vkt fnukad 21 tqqykbZ] 1990 dks f}rh; o"kZ fof/k dh ijh{kk esa esjh o Jh ,e0ih0 'kekZ dh M~;wVh dejk dze 51 esa FkhA lHkh Nk=ksa dks muds izos'k vuqefr i= ns[kdj izos'k fn;k tk jgk FkkA Jh Qk:d vgen lkSnkxj tc dejs esa vk;s ( vuqdzekad 12022 ) rks muls Hkh eSaus vuqefr i= fn[kkus dks dgkA mUgksaus vuqefr i= fn[kkus ls bUdkj dj fn;kA esjs iqu% vkxzg djus ij os vi'kCnksa dk iz;ksx djus yxs vkSj cksys " FkkscM+k cny nwaxk " esjs vkxzg dh mis{kk dj os dejs dj x;sA bl ij lkjh fLFkfr cjkens esa [kM+s mikpk;Z Jh ,l0,l0 ek/kqj o Jh ,l0Mh0 dqyJs"B dks crk;hA os nksuksa dejk dz0 51 esa vk;s vkSj mls le>kus dk iz;kl fd;k] ijUrq Jh Qk:[k vgen muks Hkh cgl djrs jgdA blh e/; dsEil M~;wVh ij dk;Zjr izk/;kid Jh gfjeksgu 'kekZ] Jh ,l0lh0 tSu] Jh th0,l0 ifj;ky] Jh ,l0lh0 esgrk Jh o th0,l0 [khaph vkSj ckn esa vki Lo;a ogka vk x;sA lc izk/;kidksa ds le>kus ij Hkh og Nk= 'kkUr ugha gqvk vkSj Jh ,e0ih0 'kekZ ds gkFk ls iz'ui= dh xM~Mh Nhudj ckgj cjkens esa vk x;kA izk/;kidksa ds le>kus ij mlus iz'ui= okfil dj fn;sA g0 21-7-90 ( ,e0 ,e0 tSu ) izk/;kid vFkZ'kkL= "" Jheku vkpk;Z egksn;] jktdh; egkfo|ky;] dksVk ekU;oj] vkt lk;a esjh o Jh ,e0,e0 tSu O;k[;krk dh M~;wVh dejk ua0 51 esa FkhA tSlk fd fu;e gS] dejs ds vUnj ?kqlus ls iwoZ Jh tSu us Jh Qk:[k vgen lkSnkxj jksy ua0 12022 ls izos'k i= fn[kkus dks dgk] mlus ugha fn[kk;k vkSj nksuksa esa xekZxehZ gqbZA oks vUnj ?kql x;kA ckr c<+h lHkh yksx Jh vkpk;Z th vjksM+k lk0 ,oa mikpk;Z th Jh ekFkqj lk0 o Jh dqyJs"B lk0 ,oa vU; izk/;kid] Jh [khaph lk0] Jh gfjeksgu 'kekZ] Jh ,l0lh0 tSu lk0] Jh esgrk lk0] Jh ifj;ky lk0 vkfn vk x;sA lHkh le>krs jgs vkSj ;g gaxkek djrk jgkA fQj ,dk,d esjs ikl ls isilZ dh xM~Mh Nhudj cjkens esa ys x;kA eSa ihNs Hkkxk] esjs lkFk mi;qZDr of.kZr O;k[;krk Hkh HkkxsA bl fLFkfr esa blus isilZ okfil dj fn;sA rnqijkUr fLFkfr dks vkpk;Z egksn; }kjk 'kkUr djkds ijh{kk iUnzg feuV mijkUr vkjEHk gks ldhA izkFkhZ0 fnukad 21-7-1990 ( egs'k izdk'k 'kekZ ) iqLrdky;k/;{k " 10. Shri M.M. Jain has clearly stated that the petitioner refused to show the admission card when he was called upon to do so by use of words "Thobda badal doonga" and had entered the Examination Hall showing scant regard for the said invigilators Shri Mahesh Prakash Sharma was also refused to show the admission card and there was hot exchange of words between Shri Jain and the petitioner. It is also clearly established from the record that the petitioner had submitted representations Annexure R/2 and Annexure R/3 and these representations were put up before the Committee and the Committee which had already taken a decision earlier in its meeting held on 4th Nov. 1990, had reviewed the matter and all the members of the Committee unanimously reiterated its earlier decision on 10th January, 1991. The scope of reasonable opportunity and the requirement of following the principles of natural justice, whether it has been followed in a given case or not, depends upon the facts of that particular case. In this regard no principle of universal application with regard to the details can be set down. It Is an undeniable fact that in the form No. 39(E) the petitioner, though initially refused to give any statement latter on mentioned in his own hand that he had touched the papers, was in the classroom with the papers in his hand and then returned the papers, sought pardon and assured not to do so in future. The petitioner's case, as stated in the writ petition that he was pressurised by the invigilators and the Principal to write down in the the form that he had made an attempt to snatch the papers from the invigilators, but as a matter of fact no incident took place, is clearly an afterthought and, the story of the question paper being out of course and that the petitioner had been pressurised to appear in the examination paper by saying that in case he does not write the paper, he is likely to be punished, was incorporated for the first time in the representation Annexure/R-3. If at all there was any grievance with regard to the question paper being out of course and further that the petitioner had been pressurised by the Principal and the invigilators, he could have sent a protest against the same after the examination was over. If at all there was any grievance with regard to the question paper being out of course and further that the petitioner had been pressurised by the Principal and the invigilators, he could have sent a protest against the same after the examination was over. The petitioner had appeared in the paper of Public International Law i.e. 5th Paper way back on 21st July, 1990, whereas the impugned order was passed against him on 17th November, 1990 and at no point of time between these two dates, the petitioner had raised such a grievance before any authority and it is only after the passing of the impugned order of punishment against him, (not even in Annexure R/2) that in Annexure R/3 dated 5th December, 1990, for the first time, such a grievance was raised. The petitioner could have at least protested against the statement which according to him, had been got written by the Invigilators and the Principal by pressurising him. Looking to the totality of facts of this case, the story with which the case has been set up by the petitioner is not believable more particularly when neither there are any allegations of personal ill-will and bias against the Principal or the Invigilators, nor any of them has been impleaded as a party to this writ petition. In the absence of the Principal and the invigilators being parties by name, the allegations of the petitioner being put under pressure for the purpose of getting the statement recorded under pressure cannot be taken to be plausible. The petitioner with his rejoinder has also filed an affidavit of Mahesh Prakash Sharma who was one of the invigilators and whose version as was reported to the Principal has been extracted hereinabove. The averments made in the affidavit dated 22nd February, 1991 by Mahesh Prakash Sharma are not at all compatible with his aforesaid version dated 21st July, 1990. In the version dated 21st July, 1990, he has stated that on that day, the petitioner was called upon to show his admission card before entering into the room as is the requirement of Rule, but he did not show the admission card and entered the room, whereas in para 2 of the affidavit he states that the petitioner had occupied his seat and thereupon on his asking the petitioner had shown the admission card. In the version dated 21st July, 1990, Mahesh Prakash has stated that: " lHkh le>krs jgs vkSj og gaxkek djrk jgkA fQj ,dk,d esjs ikl ls isilZ dh xM~Mh Nhudj cjkens esa ys x;kA eS ihNs Hkkxk] esjs lkFk mi;qZDr of.kZr O;k[;krk Hkh HkkxsA bl fLFkfr esa blus isilZ okfil dj fn;sA " Now, he has stated in para 3 of his affidavit that the petitioner did not do any vulgar act, or cut jock and did not misbehave nor did he abuse. If the petitioner's case that he was pressurised by the Invigilators and the Principal Mahesh Prakash Sharma being one of such invigilators whose affidavit of the date 22nd February, 1991, which appears to have been procured during the pendency of these proceedings and after the date of the reply dated 11th Feb.,1991 and which has been filed with the rejoinder, is conspicuously silent on the question as to whether, the statement as has been written and signed by the petitioner in the form 39(E) had been got written from the petitioner under pressure or not. The contents of this affidavit itself show the constraints of the deponent. The other invigilators namely M.M. Jain or the Principal are not parties and, therefore, their version is to be seen only as it was given by them on 21st July, 1990 from the record which was produced by the counsel for the respondents for my perusal, but the petitioner himself has relied upon the affidavit dated 22nd Feb-,1991 of Mahesh Prakash Sharma and therefore, the petitioner's case that the statement was got written from him under pressure could be tested with reference to the averments made in the affidavit dated 22nd Feb., 1991 of Mahesh Prakash Sharma who according to the petitioner himself was one of the invigilators to put the petitioner under pressure and, though, he has tried to help the petitioner by giving affidavit dated 22nd February, 1991 he does not say anything on this important aspect of the matter. The affidavit of Mahesh Prakash Sharma is also conspicuously silent on the question as to whether the question paper was out of course. Thus, the story of the question paper being out of course is not discernible from any piece of contemporaneous record including the version of Mahesh Prakash Sharma, as was reported on 21st July, 1990. The affidavit of Mahesh Prakash Sharma is also conspicuously silent on the question as to whether the question paper was out of course. Thus, the story of the question paper being out of course is not discernible from any piece of contemporaneous record including the version of Mahesh Prakash Sharma, as was reported on 21st July, 1990. The petitioner has filed few more affidavits of the other examinees and, these stereo-type affidavits are also of the same date i.e. 22nd February, 1991. These students have, of course, stated that the question paper was out of course; noise was raised for boycotting the paper; that the petitioner did not snatch the question papers from the invigilators; that the petitioner was asked to sit in some other room; he did not misbehave and that later on the petitioner had disclosed to the deponent that some thing had been got written from him under pressure. It is difficult to believe such affidavits as against the contemporaneous record and on a cross-check of the petitioner's case that the statement was got written and signed by him under the pressure of the Invigilators and the Principal through the contemporaneous record, the absence of the petitioner's protest after the examination was over until the filing of the representation Annexure/R-3 dated 5th December, 1990 and the absence of such a case in Annexure/R-2; the conspicuous silence of Mahesh Prakash Sharma, I find that the petitioner's case that the statement was got written and signed by him under pressure is not at all believable. The petitioner had the audecity of using the words "Thobda badal doonga" against one of the Invigilators and of snatching the bundle of question papers from the hands of the other invigilator and had admitted his fault of of natural justice and says that reasonable opportunity was denied to him. To make out a case of violation of principles of natural justice, the petitioner has tried to wriggle out of his own statement which be had given on spot on the basis of the case of pressurisation, which stands disbelieved. To make out a case of violation of principles of natural justice, the petitioner has tried to wriggle out of his own statement which be had given on spot on the basis of the case of pressurisation, which stands disbelieved. It was a case in which the petitioner had himself admitted his fault and had sought pardon for the same coupled with the assurance of not repeating the same in future and, in such circumstances, no show cause notice was necessary even according to the Ordinance 152(5)(iv) because the show cause notice is necessary only when the candidates refuses to give his statement on the spot, or leaves the Centre with giving his statement. It is not the petitioner's case that he had left the Centre without giving the statement and even if the petitioner had initially refused to give the statement, the factual position is that ultimately he gave the statement. The principles of natural justice are not something which - in be cut, weighed and dried. It is all a question of affording a reasonable opportunity and that a candidate must know the allegations. In the facts of the case, it is transparently visible that the petitioner fully knew the allegations and he had tried to safeguard himself against all these allegations as is evident from the contents of Annexure R/3. Nothing prevented the petitioner from putting up the story of the question paper being out of course in the statement which was written by himself and nothing prevented him from challenging the statement written and signed by himself and from protesting that it was got written and signed by him under pressure immediately after the examination was over, or even little latter; but the petitioner did not venture to do so at any point of time before the passing of the impugned order. The Mark-sheet which the petitioner has placed on record bears the date 10th October, 1990 , in which he is shown to be absent, the impugned order was passed on 17th Nov., 1990. The petitioner did not submit any written protest even between the aforesaid two dates i.e. 10th October, 1990 and 17th November 1990 and has rest contented by making a false and vague statement in para 7 of the writ petition that he approached the authorities concerned who assured him to look into the grievance. The petitioner did not submit any written protest even between the aforesaid two dates i.e. 10th October, 1990 and 17th November 1990 and has rest contented by making a false and vague statement in para 7 of the writ petition that he approached the authorities concerned who assured him to look into the grievance. These allegations have been denied by the respondents and it has been stated in the reply that the mark-sheet has been issued to the petitioners due to inadvertence of the staff of the College and it has not given any right to him and that he had been shown absent in the paper of Public International Law because no marks were mentioned in the award list and, it is the further case of the respondents that no mark-sheet is issued to the students against whom a case is made out and reported in Form No. 39(E) and the result is withheld till the decision of the Unfair-means Committee and further that his both the representations were placed before the Committee for review and the same were considered on merit by the said Committee. It has been further stated in para 8 of the reply that the petitioner had been given full chance to defend his case on the spot itself; decision had been taken by the Committee and the same had been conveyed to the petitioner by the Principal of the College. Thus, the case of the respondents is in order and is also in consonance with the record and the relevant provisions as has been discussed here in above. 11. The petitioner's case with regard of para 17 of the prospects of 1990-91 issued by respondent No. 2 that the students found guilty of gross-misconduct Ordinance 88 of the University of Ajmer has been met by the respondent in para 9 of the reply, wherein it has been stated that the respondent College is affiliated to Ajmer University and is, therefore, bound by any rules, regulations or ordinance of the Ajmer University. Para 17 of the Prospectus of 1990-91 is not applicable in the present case because the prospectus is only to inform the candidates about the college activities, course of study and other activities. Para 17 of the Prospectus of 1990-91 is not applicable in the present case because the prospectus is only to inform the candidates about the college activities, course of study and other activities. The respondents have also stated that Ordinance 88 governs the case of indiscipline, misconduct during the course of study in the college and is not applicable to cases of indiscipline reported during the course of examination.Ordinance 88 is reproduced as under : "0.88. The following provisions are laid down for dealing, with cases of indiscipline : 1. When a student has been accused guilty of serious criminal charge (s), grave misconduct, persistent negligence of work or mis-behaviour, the Principal of the affiliated College/Director of University School or College or Institution/ Head of University Teaching Department/Dean, University Studies in Articles Fine Arts/Social Sciences/Science/Commerce/Law where he is studying, Chief Proctor will suspend a student forthwith from attending the classes during the period of suspension the student will not be allowed to participate in any activity of the College/University including appearing in the examinations. When the student has been suspended pending enquiry the warden or the Chief Warden of University Hostel(s)/Principal may suspend or remove such student from the hostel. 2. Soon after suspension, the case will be referred to the standing Discipline Committee of the College/University. The Chairman of the Standing Committee shall be a senior member of the teaching staff with 5 or 6 other members of staff nominated by the Principal/Vice-Chancellor. The members should preferably represent all major faculties and should be such as have positive influence on the students. The Standing Discipline Committee will meet and after due consideration recommend suitable punishment which may include fine or expulsion for a fixed period /permanent expulsion or both. The punishment will be implemented by the authority which had suspended the student. 3. If a criminal case has been registered in a Court of Law by the Police (State), the student shall be suspended immediately pending enquiry. 4. No student who has been so suspended or expelled shall be admitted to any other college/ teaching unit of the University without the permission of authority which suspended /expelled him and no student who has been so suspended/ expelled shall be admitted to any other college/teaching unit of the University within the period of his suspension/expulsion. 5. 4. No student who has been so suspended or expelled shall be admitted to any other college/ teaching unit of the University without the permission of authority which suspended /expelled him and no student who has been so suspended/ expelled shall be admitted to any other college/teaching unit of the University within the period of his suspension/expulsion. 5. On appeal from the student the Director, College Education in the case of affiliated Colleges and the Vice Chancellor in the case of the University teaching units, may review the case and after due consideration, may decide to concur or enhance or reduce the punishment." 12. In these circumstances, I find that reference to Ordinance 88 is erroneous. 13. Counsel for the petitioner has cited Dilip Kumar Patni v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., 1986 RLR 314 , Sanjay Lobo v. The University of Rajasthan, 1980 W LN 522 , Radhakishan v. University of Rajasthan, 1976 W LN (UC) 310 Suresh Kumar v. University of Rajasthan, 1976 W LN (UC) 317 and Jagdish Prasad v. Principal, RNT, M.C., Udaipur and Ors., 1988 (1)RLW 36 . These cases are relating to unfair-means except the last case of Jagdish Prasad v. Principal, RNT, M.C., Udaipur and Ors., 1988 (1) RLW 36 (Supra), which too is a case of expulsion for disorderly conduct. I have already mentioned above that whether reasonable opportunity has been afforded and to what extent the principles of natural justice were required to be followed and have been followed is a question to be decided on the facts of each case with reference to the relevant rules and, I am fully convinced that in this case, there is no denial of reasonable opportunity and there is no violation of the principles of natural justice and there is no case of miscarriage of justice and the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are of no help to the petitioner in the facts of the present case. 14. Shri Kamlakar Sharma had also submitted that the petitioner should have been at least heard on the question of quantum of punishment and there is a violation of principle of natural justice for this purpose also, and even if he had admitted his guilt, the extreme penalty of cancellation of the entire examination of 1990 and further debarring him for the year 1991 was highly excessive and disproportionate. In this regard, it may be observed that there is no requirement of any rule for the purpose of affording an opportunity with regard to quantum of punishment in such case and the requirement of the principles of natural justice is not an unruly horse which may enter into any areas, more particularly when I find that the punishment of cancellation of the examination of 1990 and debarring for the year 1990-91 is in conformity with the norms of punishment prescribed under Ordinance 152 on which the petitioner himself relies. Ordinance 152(4) prescribes the punishment as under: "152(4) Norms of punishment: (ii) if the behaviour of the candidate on being caught is unsatisfactory. Present examination shall be cancelled and he shall be further debarred for one subsequent examination if the examination is held once a year, or two subsequent examination if the examination is held twice a year." Note:- If a candidate uses resistance or violence against the invigilator or any other person on Examination duty, the punishment may be enhanced according to the gravity of the offence." 15. In' these circumstances, I find that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is according to the prescribed norms; there is no scope for deviation from these norms, nor it was a case of departure from the prescribed norms and hence the grievance about not hearing on the question of quantum of punishment is wholly misconceived. 16. The result of the above discussion and adjudication is that I do not find any force in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. Looking to the fact that the petitioner is a student, the costs are made easy.Writ Petition allowed. *******