JUDGMENT S.P. Srivastava, J. - The petitioner was a regular student of the Allahabad University and after successfully passing the examination of the B, So, 1 year, was granted admission in B. Sc. Part II year and per-sued the course of studies prescribed there for in the Session 1990-91. The examination for the B. Sc. II year for the Session ;990-91 took place in the month of July, 1991. The petitioner was allotted roll number 80010 for appearing at the said examination. It is asserted by the petitioner that he received a show-cause notice dated 3-8-1991 from f he University on 17-8-1991, wherein he was charged with using unfair-means, while appearing at the examination of Chemistry I paper of B. Sc. Part II examination 1991. which was held on 19-7-1991 and intimating him that on amount of his using unfair-means, punishment of cancellation of the examination for the year 1991 could be awarded and he could also be debarred from appearing in the subsequent examination. Under the aforesaid notice, the petitioner was required to submit an explanation to the charge of using unfair-means indicated above. The notice containing the charge, referred to above also disclosed the material, which was to be utilised in support of the charge. The material disclosed was 'a hand written page'. 2. The petitioner submitted a reply to the aforesaid notice wherein he denied the charge levelled against him asserting that no such material as referred to in the notice had been recovered from him. He had also asserted that he had not used unfair-means and he has been falsely implicated. 3. It appears that after the submission of the reply, the matter was considered by the Examination Committee. On 27-1-1992, the University had published a notice, a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition, where under it was communicated that the result of the petitioner had been cancelled and he had also been debarred from the subsequent examination 1992. It further appears that vide the communication dated 28-3-1992, a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition, the petitioner was informed that he has been awarded punishment of cancellation of his result of B. Sc. Part II examination 1991 as well for attempt using of unfair-means at the B. So. Part II Examination of 1991. 4. Part II examination 1991 as well for attempt using of unfair-means at the B. So. Part II Examination of 1991. 4. The present writ petition was filed on 7th April. 1992, seeking for quashing of the order dated 27-1-1992 and the order dated 28-3-1992, referred to above and further seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to declare the petitioner's result of B. Sc. Examination Part II. 5. On 7-4-1992 itself learned Counsel representing the respondent was granted time to file a counter-affidavit. On 21-4-1992 the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent was directed to produce the relevant record pertaining to the case of the petitioner, leading up to the passing of the impugned order for the perusal of the Court. A counter-affidavit in reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondent on 28-4-1992. The petitioner has already filed a rejoinder-affidavit. In pursuance of the order passed by the Court dated 24-4-1992, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has also produced the relevant record. 6. The Counsel for the parties have jointly requested that this writ petition may be finally disposed off. Since the parties have already exchanged their affidavits and the whole carer of petitioner student is at stake and further the stigma of having adopted unfair-means is bound to cast slur on his character for the rest of his life, which is a serious matter, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case, in which this writ petition may be finally disposed off at this very stage under the II proviso to Rule 2 (1) of Chapter 22 of the Rules of the Court. 7. I have heard Shri Ram Niwas Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Haider Hussain learned Counsel representing the respondents. I have further carefully gone through the writ petition, counter affidavit, and the rejoinder-affidavit and the relevant papers annexed therewith. I have also gone through the relevant papers contained in the record, produced before me by Shri Haider Hussain, learned Counsel representing the respondent. I have also considered the oral submissions made by the learned Counsel for the respondent as well as the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. 8. As would appear from the narration of the facts, the petitioner is alleged to have used a 'hand written page 'while answering the question paper No. I of B. Sc. I have also considered the oral submissions made by the learned Counsel for the respondent as well as the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. 8. As would appear from the narration of the facts, the petitioner is alleged to have used a 'hand written page 'while answering the question paper No. I of B. Sc. Examination Part It held on 19th July, 1991. The show-cause notice referred to above does not indicate that the unauthorised material i. e 'a hand written page" was found in possession of the petitioner or that it pertained to the syllabus of the question paper of the day or that it had actually been used for the purpose of answering the question paper. The reply given by the petitioner was that no paper had been recovered from his possession and that he had not resorted to unfair-means, while answering the question paper on 19th July, 1991. 9. In the circumstances, the fact as to whether the incriminating paper in question had been actually found in possession of the petitioner, while answering the question paper in question is of great significance in the present case. 10. The petitioner has asserted that the impugned orders have been passed in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice and further in violation of the mandatory provisions contained in the relevant Orders, which contain the provisions regulating the procedure to be followed in the case of use of unfair-means by a student in an examination held by the University. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has asserted that taking into consideration the provisions contained in Sections 29 and 51 of the U P. State Universities Act and the Ordinances framed thereunder, regulating the procedure to be followed in the oases involving use of unfair-means in an examination held by the University, it was incumbent upon the respondent authority to comply with the requirements contained in Ordinance 1. 3 of the Ordinances contained in Chapter 28 of the Ordinances and that procedure having not been followed, the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner leading up to the passing of the impugned order, stand vitiated in law and are rendered manifestly illegal. 11. 3 of the Ordinances contained in Chapter 28 of the Ordinances and that procedure having not been followed, the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner leading up to the passing of the impugned order, stand vitiated in law and are rendered manifestly illegal. 11. From the record produced by the learned counsel for the respondent, it is apparent that there is nothing therein, which could lead to an inference that the incriminating paper had been found from the possession of the petitioner on 19-7-1991, when he was answering the Chemistry question paper No. 1 and it is further apparent that no notice was served on the petitioner in the examination hall itself for using unfair-means in the examination in question. In fact there is no report of any invigilator and the Chief Invigilator of having found the petitioner in possession of the incriminating material and there is further nothing on the record to indicate that this fact was brought to the notice of the petitioner in the examination ball itself on the date and time in question. In this connection, it may be pointed out that in the counter-affidavit filed by Sri V. K. Singh on behalf of the respondent has been asserted in Paragraph 6 thereof that the petitioner was caught red handed using unfair-means from the hand written chit, which was taken away from the possession of the petitioner and that when the petitioner was asked to sign on the unfair-means form in the examination hall, he had refused to sign. The aforesaid assertion has been sworn on the basis of the perusal of the record. In the rejoinder-affidavit, the assertions made in Paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit have been denied, stating that they are wrong. The petitioner has categorically denied the assertion made in paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit as incorrect and baseless. He has further asserted that he had not been given any notice in the examination fall as required under the Ordinances. 12. Taking into consideration the relevant record, which has been produced by Shri Haider Hussain, learned Counsel for the respondent, the falsity of the assertion made in paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit is apparent. Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to show any material on the record, which could support the assertion made in Paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit, which has been sworn on the basis of the record. Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to show any material on the record, which could support the assertion made in Paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit, which has been sworn on the basis of the record. In the absence of the very basis of the assertion made in paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit and the same being non-existent the aforesaid assertions are liable to be ignored. 13. The question therefore, that arises for consideration is as to the effect of the provisions contained in the Ordinance No. 1.3 of the Ordinances regulating the procedure to be followed in the cases of using unfair-means in an examination held by the University. 14. Section 29 of the U. P. State Universities Act provides that there shall be an Examination Committee in the University, the constitution of which shall be as may bo provided for in the Ordinances. Sub-clause (3) of Section 29 provides that the Examination Committee may appoint such number of Sub-Committees as it thinks fit, and in particular, may delegate to any one or more persons of Sub-Committees the power to deal with and decide oases relating to the use of unfair-means by the examinees. The Sub-Committee, while dealing with and deciding the cases relating to the use of unfair-means has to adopt certain procedure. The procedure has obviously not been given in Section 29 of the State Universities Act or any where else in the Act. Some procedures are laid down in the Ordinance referred to above, Reference in this connection may be made to Ordinance No. 1.3 and 1.5 which are reproduced below ; "1.3. A candid to found using unfair-means aD examination shall be served with a notice therefor in the examination hall itself and, if he ref uses to accept or avoids are escapes personal receipt of such notice. Such notice shall be sent to him by Registered Post within seven days of the incident. 3 he candidate shall be required to submit his reply to the notice within 10 days of the issue of such notice. If no reply is received within this period, it would be presumed that the candidate has nothing to state in his defence." "1.5. 3 he candidate shall be required to submit his reply to the notice within 10 days of the issue of such notice. If no reply is received within this period, it would be presumed that the candidate has nothing to state in his defence." "1.5. The Committee referred to in the Ordinance 1.4 above shall consider : (a) the report, if any, about the candidate having been found in possession of unauthorised material ; (b) the reply of the candidate, if any, to the notice ; (c) the report of the examiner concerned, if any, regarding the transcription or non-transcription of the authorised material of which the candidate was found in possession ; (d) any other report of intimidation, threat, manhandling or violence received in connection 'with the conduct of the examination by any person on duty of the University ; and (e) any other material." 15. A perusal of the Ordinance 1.3 indicates that a candidate found using unfair-means in an examination has to be served with a notice therefor in the examination hall itself and if he refuses to accept or avoids or escapes personal receipt of such notice, such notice is required to be sent to him by registered post within seven days of the incident. The provisions "contained in Ordinance 1.5 referred to above, provide that report, if any, about the candidate having been found in possession of unauthorised material had to be taken into consideration by the Committee, which is empowered to award punishment for the use of unfair-means. 16. In the present case, nothing as required under the Ordinance 1.3, referred to above was done and the statement of the petitioner was not taken soon after he is alleged to have been challenged for using unfair-means. The use of word 'shall' in Ordinance 1.3 referred to above is quite significant. 17. The provisions contained in Ordinance 1.3 clearly envisage the procedure for informing a candidate of the charges levelled against him about the use of unfair-means in the examination hall by having in his possession an unauthorised material or using the same and further about the material proposed to be used against him. It further envisage giving of an opportunity to the examinee to submit his explanation then and there. It further envisage giving of an opportunity to the examinee to submit his explanation then and there. It is in conformity with these provisions that the University has prescribed a 'Unfair-means Form' which is a proforma which is required to be filled by the Head Invigilator as well as the candidate alleged to be using unfair-means. Clause 2 of the proforma, shows that in case an examinee is found using unfair-means, a detailed report regarding such use by the examinee should be given by the Head Invigilator of the examination centre. Clause 3 provides for the description of the unauthorised material found in the possession of the examinee and Clause 4 provides that the above report and the fact of recovery unauthorised material should be brought to the notice examinee then and there in the examination hull itself and his explanation should be obtained. The Chief Invigilator is to certify that all this procedure was followed in his presence. 18. The provisions contained in the Ordinance 1.3 of the Ordinances, impose an obligation on the authority and lays down the manner, in which and the time, within which this obligation has to be performed. In its decision in the case of Khub Chand v. State of Rajasthan, reported in A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1074, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus : " term 'shall' in its ordinary significance is mandatory and the Court shall ordinarily give that interpretation to that term unless such an interpretation leads to some absurd or in conversant consequence or be at variance with the intent of the Legislature, to be collected from other part of the Act " 19. In order to determine the question as to whether the term 'shall' accused in the Ordinance 1.3 referred to above, is mandatory or directory, the subject-matter has to be looked at and the importance of the provision in its relation to the general object intended to be secured has to be taken into account. 20. Taking into consideration the principles relating to purposeful construction, which is to effectuate the object and purpose of the ordinance, the rigid adherence to the statutory prescription appears to be a must. This statutory provision as to time and place is clearly a condition for exercising the statutory power for imposing punishment for the use of unfair-means by an examinee, who appears at an examination held by the University. This statutory provision as to time and place is clearly a condition for exercising the statutory power for imposing punishment for the use of unfair-means by an examinee, who appears at an examination held by the University. Such procedural safeguards for the benefit of the examinee likely to be affected by the administrative action imposition of punishment have to be regarded as mandatory so it is fatal to disregard them. 21. As has already been noticed above, a stigma of using unfair-means is of a far reaching consequences, and visits the examinee with serious evil consequences. In case, therefore, an incriminating material is found in possession of an examinee at the time of appearing at the examination, a duty stands cast upon the authority concerned to bring this fact to the notice of the examinee then and there. The fact that the report, if any, about the candidate having been found in possession of unauthorised material is of considerable importance, is clear from the provisions contained in Ordinance 1.5 (a) of the Ordinances referred to above, which makes it incumbent upon the Examination Committee to consider such a report, while taking a decision. Ordinance 1.6 of the Ordinances referred to above prescribes the quantum of punishment for the use of unfair-means. It shows that possession of unauthorised material by its If is punishable with cancellation of the results of the candidate in the examination in question and if its use is established, a further punishment of debarring from the corresponding and any other subsequent examinations of the next academic session is impossible. 22. As has been seen above, the term 'shall* in its ordinary significance is mandatory and ordinarily it has to be given such an interpretation unless it leads to a consequence, which could be at variance which the intent of the Legislature to be collected from other parts of the Act. Considering the provisions under consideration and the setting, in which the expression appears and the object for which the direction is given, the real intention behind the use of this term appears to be to make the condition mandatory. 23. Considering the provisions under consideration and the setting, in which the expression appears and the object for which the direction is given, the real intention behind the use of this term appears to be to make the condition mandatory. 23. Taking into consideration, the aforesaid aspects, there is no escape from the conclusion that the use of the term 'shall' in Ordinance 1.3, referred to above is in an imperative sense and the requirement of serving the notice using unfair-means in the examination hall itself is of a mandatory requirement is fatal to the order of punishment and the proceedings leading upto. 24. Even otherwise, such a requirement is in consonance with the principles of natural justice and fair play. 25. It is apparent from the record that the petitioner had not been told in the examination hall that he had in his possession certain material pertaining to the syllabus of the question. Petitioner has refuted that the document in question was found in his possession as alleged. The unfair-means Sub-Committee has not recorded any rinding that the petitioner was actually In possession of the document in question. The mandatory requirement envisaged under Ordinance 1.3 of the Ordinances, indicated above had not been complied with. No material has been placed before me to show that anybody stated before the Sub-Committee that the petitioner was found in possession of the incriminating document. The charge levelled against the petitioner, thus, was not at all established. 26. The above being the position, I am clearly of the view that the impugned order of punishment is violable of the principle of natural justice. The impugned decision is neither in accordance with the provisions of Section 29 of the Act nor the Ordinances in question. It therefore, deserves to be quashed. 27. In the result the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 27-1-1992, a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure-3 and the order dated 28-3-1992, a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition are quashed. The respondent is further commanded to declare the petitioner's result after getting his answer book examined within 15 days. 28. The counsel for the petitioner has also pressed for the grant of relief claimed by the petitioner for permitting him to appear in the B. Sc. Part III Examination, 1992. The respondent is further commanded to declare the petitioner's result after getting his answer book examined within 15 days. 28. The counsel for the petitioner has also pressed for the grant of relief claimed by the petitioner for permitting him to appear in the B. Sc. Part III Examination, 1992. In case, the petitioner has completed the course of study prescribed for appearing in the B. Sc. Part III Examination, the respondent shall provisionally permit him to appear in the said Examination. The result of B. Sc. Part III Examination will however, depend on the result of his B.Sc. Part II Examination. Hence, the result of the petitioner's Examination for B. Sc. Part III year will be declared only when the petitioner is declared successful in the Examination of B. So. Part II. The petitioner's result of B. Sc. Part II shall be declared by the University within three weeks. 29. There shall be no order as to cost.