JUDGMENT : R.A. Sharma, J. Km. Divya Chandra, Respondent No. 1 in this Special Appeal, was a student op B. E. (Elec.) of University of Roorkee (hereinafter referred to as the University). She passed both semesters of B.E. (Elec.) first year with 55.3 and 65.9 percent marks and autumn semester of second year with 61.6 percent. She also appeared in 2nd year's spring semester is which she secured 85.2 percent marks. After the declaration of her result of the second year's spring semester in which she secured extremely high marks, fellow students raised agitation and also made representation to Head of the Department, alleging gross irregularities, and manipulations in her examination result The Vice-Chancellor of the University appointed an inquiry committee on 26-8-1986 consisting of. Dr. K.G. Ranga Raju as Chairman and Dr. N.K. Nanda and Dr. R. Snhasan as members in order to find out whether there is any reason to believe that there has been any irregularity in evolution of the performance of Km. Divya Chandra. This committee was to make preliminary Inquiry and to submit a report. The Committee submitted a report on the basis of which the Vice-Chancellor appointed another committee consisting of Dr. A. R. Chandrasekaran as Chairman and three Professors as the members on 16-9-1986. This committee was known as 'Unfair Means Committee' and was appointed to inquire into the alleged use of unfair means by Km. Divya Chandra. The Chandrasekaran committee issued a notice on 24-9-1986 to Km. Divya Chandra, calling upon her to present her case before it. The students, who had raised complaint against Km. Divya Chandra started agitation and resorted to hunger strike so as to pressurise the Vice-Chancellor to appoint a committee consisting of persons to be selected from the list of the teachers given by them to the Vice-Chancellor. List of the teachers given by the students contained nine names. In view of the pressure exerted by the students, the Vice-Chancellor dissolved the Chandrasekaran committee and appointed another committee consisting of Prof. S. K. Saraf (Chairman) and four other teachers as members. Names of Prof. Saraf and other teachers, who were members of this committee, were taken from the list of nine teachers submitted by the students to the Vice-Chancellor. Km. Divya Chandra filed Writ Petition No. 8499 of 1987 before this Court, challenging the appointment of the inquiry committee headed by Prof. S. K. Saraf. Names of Prof. Saraf and other teachers, who were members of this committee, were taken from the list of nine teachers submitted by the students to the Vice-Chancellor. Km. Divya Chandra filed Writ Petition No. 8499 of 1987 before this Court, challenging the appointment of the inquiry committee headed by Prof. S. K. Saraf. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, holding that the constitution as well as the proceedings of the Saraf committee were against the principles of natural justice, fairplay and good conscious. It was further held that members of the Saraf committee were biased against Km. Divya Chandra and the inquiry report submitted by this committee is ultra vires and was declared invalid and nonest. With the result the inquiry proceedings and the inquiry report were set aside and any punishment imposed on Km. Divya Chandra on the basis of the inquiry report was declared to be nonest and the University authorities were directed to treat the disciplinary proceeding against her as closed. 2. University has filed this special appeal against the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Sri Dinesh Kackar, learned Counsel for the Appellant has made three submissions in support of this appeal, namely, (i) there is no justification for declaring the constitution of the committee headed by Praf. Saraf as illegal, (ii) findings of the learned Single Judge on the question of reasonable apprehension of bias are uncalled for and there is no material in support thereof; and (iii) learned Single Judge was not justified in closing the inquiry after declaring the constitution and the report of the Saraf Committee as illegal. Sri Ravi Kant, learned Counsel for Km. Divya Chandra has disputed the above submissions and has pressed for dismissal of the appeal. 4. When fellow students of Km. Divya Chandra raised agitation alleging irregularities and use of unfair means by her in the examination of second year's spring semester, it was open to the Vice-Chancellor to appoint a committee in go into the matter. He was fully justified to appoint Ranga Raju committee to hold preliminary inquiry and to submit a report. After the preliminary report was submitted, the Vice-Chancellor was well within his right to appoint a committee and he in fact appointed the Chandrasekaran committee ar 'Unfair Means Committee and this committee issued notice to Km. He was fully justified to appoint Ranga Raju committee to hold preliminary inquiry and to submit a report. After the preliminary report was submitted, the Vice-Chancellor was well within his right to appoint a committee and he in fact appointed the Chandrasekaran committee ar 'Unfair Means Committee and this committee issued notice to Km. Divya Chandra for her reply. Students however, were not satisfied with the constitution of 'unfair means committee', as they wanted a committee, which is to consist of the Chairman and the members named by them. With this view they started agitation and some of them had gone on hunger strike to pressurise the Vice-Chancellor to constitute another committee in” place of Chandrasekaran committee. Due to the hunger strike and agitation resorted to by the students, the Vice-Chancellor dissolved the Chandrasekaran committee and appointed in its place a' committee consisting of Prof. Saraf as Chairman and four other teachers as members. It is admitted that the names of all the five persons of this committee are from the list of nine teachers submitted by the students to the Vice-Chancellor. From the perusal of the writ petition, counter affidavits and rejoinder affidavits as well as the documents annexed thereto, it is apparent that the. Vice-Chancellor was under pressure and he was forced to dissolve Chandrasekaran committee and to appoint another committee headed by Prof. Saraf. This was an order under duress. If any decision is taken under duress on account of GHERAO or agitation, it has no legal sanctity and is void abinitio and is not liable to be- acted upon. Although in the counter affidavit filed in reply to the writ petition, University authorities have tried to justify the constitution of Saraf committee; but from the perusal of the memorandum submitted by the students to the Vice-Chancellor for constituting a committee from the list of teachers given by them, agenda of the emergency meeting of the syndicate held on 7-1-1987, it is quite clear that Saraf committee was appointed by the Vice-Chancellor on account of the agitation and hunger strike. There is nothing on the record to show that Dr. Chandrasekaran and other members of the committee of which he was Chairman appointed on 16-9-1986 were in any manner biased, unfair or incompetent. There is not even a whisper regarding the integrity of Dr. There is nothing on the record to show that Dr. Chandrasekaran and other members of the committee of which he was Chairman appointed on 16-9-1986 were in any manner biased, unfair or incompetent. There is not even a whisper regarding the integrity of Dr. Chandrasekaran and other members in the record produced by the University before this Court. In fact Sri Dinesh Kackar, learned Counsel for the University has stated that nobody including the students, who led agitation had any doubt about the integrity, sincerity and competence of Dr. Chandrasekaran and other members of the committee of which he was Chairman. If that is so, why was the committee of Chandraskaran dissolved, has not been explained by the University. The only thing stated by the University is that there was some demand for expansion of terms of reference of Chandrasekaran committee. If that was so, the terms of reference could have beer; expanded, but why Chandrasekaran committee was dissolved and Prof. Saraf committee was appointed, has not been explained; Reasons given above, specially the fact that names of Chairman and the members of the Saraf committee were taken from the list of nine teachers submitted by the students and that this committee was constituted on account of the agitation and hunger strike resorted to by the students, clearly go to establish that this committee was constituted under extreme pressure exerted by the students on the Vice-Chancellor, who was, as circumstances indicate, concerned to constitute that committee. The finding of the learned Single Judge about the constitution of Saraf committee cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity. 5. The second submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant deserves the same fate. As mentioned hereinbefore, names of Saraf committee were taken from the list of teachers submitted by the students, which consists of names of nine teachers only. Saraf committee, after its constitution, issued a notice to Km. Divya Chandra to appear in written test in two papers; but when she requested that all other students should be asked to appear in the same examination, the matter was not proceeded further. On 11-11-1986 this committee submitted an interim, report to the Vice-Chancellor requesting him to suspend Km. Divya Chandra from attending her classes. Thereafter by another interim report dated 22-12-1986 the committee requested the Vice-Chancellor to with-hold”. the result of autumn semester examination of Km. Divya Chandra pending inquiry. On 11-11-1986 this committee submitted an interim, report to the Vice-Chancellor requesting him to suspend Km. Divya Chandra from attending her classes. Thereafter by another interim report dated 22-12-1986 the committee requested the Vice-Chancellor to with-hold”. the result of autumn semester examination of Km. Divya Chandra pending inquiry. These reports were placed before the syndicate of the University on 8-1-1987 in which Prof. Saraf, Chairman of the committee and its other members were present and took part in the proceedings of the syndicate, which accepted the interim reports of the committee partly by approving the with holding of the result of Km. Divya Chandra; but the committee's report regarding her suspension was rejected. The -Vice-Chancellor did not ask this committee to submit interim report. It was on account of the over enthusiasm of the members and the Chairman of this committee that two interim reports were submitted against Km. Divya Chandra although inquiry had just initiated and till then . no charge had been framed against her. That apart, one of the members of this Committee, Sri V. K. Verma had appeared before Ranga Raju committee and had deposed against Km. Divya Chandra on the basis of which report of the preliminary inquiry was submitted before the Vice-Chancellor. The fact that Dr. Verma did not hter on participate in the proceedings of the committee, does not detract from the fact that committee was consisted of the persons, who were some how or the other biased against Km. Divya Chandra. To sum up the absence of any reasonable justification for dissolving Chandrasekaran committee, agitation and hunger strike resorted to by the students, forcing the Vice-Chancellor to constitute the Saraf Committee from the list of nine teachers submitted by the students, one of the members of the committee, Dr. V.K. Verma, being one of those persons, who had deposed against Km. Divya Chandra before Ranga Raju committee, submission of two interim reports referred to above against her before framing the charges without there being any such request from the Vice-Chancellor and the manner in which Saraf committee conducted the proceedings of the committee and the way in which they were dealing with Km. Divya Chandra, clearly establish a case of bias and Km. Divya Chandra was justified to have reasonable apprehension of bias against this committee. Divya Chandra, clearly establish a case of bias and Km. Divya Chandra was justified to have reasonable apprehension of bias against this committee. The learned Single Judge has given findings in detail on this question also and we respectfully agree with his Lordship. 6. After declaring the constitution and the report of Saraf committee as ultra vires, learned Single Judge has directed the Respondents to treat the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner as closed. If the constitution of Saraf committee is illegal, University was entitled to get the inquiry made by another committee. Allegations raised against Km. Divya Chandra by fellow students were serious enough to warrant an inquiry by duly constituted committee, specially after the report of the preliminary inquiry submitted by the Ranga Raju committee against her. Under the circumstances, there was no justification-for closing the inquiry against Km. Divya Chandra. 7. Examination of second year's spring semester was held in 1985-86 and thereafter she was permitted to appear in all the semesters of third and fourth year in 1986-87 and 1987-88. Marks obtained by her in all four years have been placed before us by the University in a sealed envelope which was opened by us in the open Court, from which it is apparent that she has secured 60.6%, 67.7% in two semesters of third year and 81.2% marks in fourth year examination and there was no grievance against her regarding these examinations. From the marks obtained by her, it is apparent that she is above average student, although she has secured unusual high marks in the second year's spring semester, being 85.2%. Under normal circumstances, she would have passed B.E. (Elec.) in 1988/89, but on account of the inquiry and the pendency of the writ petition and the special appeal in this Court, her result was not declared. Constitution of another committee now after about five years would take time for settlement of the controversy, as the aggrieved, party, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, is expected to challenge the report of the inquiry committee before this Court and thereafter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Constitution of another committee now after about five years would take time for settlement of the controversy, as the aggrieved, party, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, is expected to challenge the report of the inquiry committee before this Court and thereafter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. She has already wasted about five years due to inquiry and the pendency of the writ petition and the special appeal on account of which declaration of her result has been delayed and for this reason she mast have suffered both mental and physical torture, which cannot be compensated even if she is exonerated by the new committee. Adding few more years to the period of her suffering may lead to break down and may result in spoiling her career. The appointment of new committee now can only harm Km. Divya Chandra without giving any benefit Jo the fellow students, who had led the agitation against her, because they must have left the University by now. Although we agree with the learned Counsel for the University that learned Single Judge should not have closed the inquiry, against Km. Divya Chandra; but under the circumstances, which have changed due to passage of time, specially the base of about 9-10 months after the judgment of the learned Single Judge, it would meet the end of justice if instead of holding inquiry against her, she is directed to appear again in the examination of second year's spring semester of B.E. (Elec.) and the marks obtained by her in this examination be added to her total marks obtained in other examinations of B.E. (Elec.) and thereafter her result be declared. 8. For the reasons given above, this appeal is dismissed with costs with the direction to the Vice-Chancellor of the University to hold examination of B.E. (Elec.) second year's spring semester of Km. Divya Chandra afresh within three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order before him after giving her atleast two months' time so as enable her to prepare the course for the said examination. Her answer book will be examined within a month from the date of the examination. Divya Chandra afresh within three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order before him after giving her atleast two months' time so as enable her to prepare the course for the said examination. Her answer book will be examined within a month from the date of the examination. While preparing her final result, the University will not take into account the marks obtained by her in the second year's spring semester held in 1985-86, which has given rise to the agitation and constitution of inquiry committee. In its place the marks obtained by her in the examination for the same semester, which is to be conducted in pursuance of this judgment, shall be taken into account and be added to the marks obtained by her in all other examinations right from first to fourth year. Her result will be declared within six weeks from the date of the aforesaid examination. 9. Before parting with the case, it may be observed that we expect that the Vice-Chancellor and the University authorities will not act with vengeance against her and will act fairly and reasonably in paper setting, conducting of examination and evaluation of her answer book.