ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners, who are 160 in number, have assailed the validity of the proceedings No. NU/ss2/mec/march/april, 2000 dated 11-10-2000 issued by the respondents, cancelling all the papers of the current session of Examinations conducted by the Nagarjuna University in march/april, 2000. Of the students who appeared for the 1st year, 2nd year and 3rd year B. A. , B. Com. and B. Sc. examinations from the M. A. K. A. Degree college, Medarametla. Prakasam district, and further disqualifying them to appear for any University examinations for a period of one year (two chances) with effect from March/april, 2000 i. e. , upto march/april, 2001. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case as stated by the petitioners in the writ affidavit are as under: The petitioners are the students of maka Degree College, Medarametla, prakasam district. The said college was established in the year 1993 under the category of Minority (Muslim) Institutions and it is affiliated to the Nagarjuna university. The said MAKA college is admitting the students and conducting examinations for the last seven years as per the terms and conditions of the University and there are no complaints of malpractice from any quarter and that for the year March/april 2000 also the said MAKA college was selected as an examination centre for conducting exanimations for the 1st year, 2nd year and 3rd years B. A. , B. Com. , and b. Sc. , as per the schedule from 13-3-2000 to 24-3-2000. The students of B. V. R and l. K. College were also allotted to write their examinations from the said m. A. K. A. College. The examinations were conducted peacefully under the supervision of the University Observer "viz. , Mr. M. Sivarama Krishnaiah, who stayed around during the period of examination and had given his report to the University authorities day by day. The flying squad visited the examination centre on 14-3-2000 and they also made surprise visit on 18-3-2000 and observed the examination centre and gave report saying that over all the examinations were conducted very smoothly. Another squad visited the examination centre on 24-3- 2000 and on that day also there was no complaint of malpractice by the students. The flying squad visited the examination centre on 14-3-2000 and they also made surprise visit on 18-3-2000 and observed the examination centre and gave report saying that over all the examinations were conducted very smoothly. Another squad visited the examination centre on 24-3- 2000 and on that day also there was no complaint of malpractice by the students. But, to the surprise of the management of the said M. A. K. A. College, the Principal received an order from the Registrar of the nagarjuna University on 25-3-2000 directing the Principal to shift the examination centre from M. A. K. A. College to S. S. N. College, mangamoor Road, Ongole, for the degree examinations with effect from sessions of 30-3-2000. Accordingly, the remaining examinations were conducted at S. S. N. College, Mangamoor, Ongole. Thereafter, the results were announced on 31-5-2000 of the entire University, but the results of the students who studied and appeared for the examinations from the said M. A. K. A. College were withheld and the results of the students of the B. V. R. and L. K. College, though they appeared from the M. A. K. A college centre and wrote examinations along with the students of M. A. K. A. College, were announced. It is, therefore, alleged that the action of the respondents in withholding the result of the students of the M. A. K. A. College and announcing the result of the b. V. R. and L. K. College, though they also appeared from the said M. A. K. A. College centre, is illegal, partial and unfair. ( 3 ) THEREAFTER, the students of m. A. K. A. College approached the University authorities and made a representation on 2-6-2000 to the Executive Council Member of the University. The representation was forwarded by the Executive Council Member to the Registrar of the Nagarjuna University with an endorsement stating that the university may take any action against the management but the results should be announced immediately. When there was no action taken by the University authorities, once again the students of the said M. A. K. A. College had approached the University authorities on 10-7-2000 and expressed their grievances. Then on 24-7- 2000, the university announced result of some of the students of the said M. A. K. A. College and the result of the remaining students was kept in suspected malpractice. Then on 24-7- 2000, the university announced result of some of the students of the said M. A. K. A. College and the result of the remaining students was kept in suspected malpractice. Thereafter, the University authorities had issued memos on 5-8-2000 through Special Officer to all the petitioners herein asking their explanations for the examinations conducted on 13-3-2000, 14-3-2000, 15-3-2000, 17-3-2000 and 23-3-2000. The petitioners submitted their explanations denying the allegation of malpractice. Thereafter, it is alleged that without considering the explanations submitted by the petitioners, the Vice-Chancellor of the University issued the impugned proceedings dated 11-10-2000. Questioning the validity of the impugned proceedings, the present writ petition is filed contending that the impugned order was passed without following the Rules prevailing on the subject, that the University authorities should have imposed the punishment basing on the reports of the supervising staff or the Committee specifically appointed by the Vice- chancellor, and that as per the Rules, the university may conduct the re-examination in the specified paper or papers at another centre by cancelling the centre for examination at the place for a specified period of the students, after giving prior notice of the schedule or re-examination permitting only those who are not booked on specific charges in the earlier examination. It is alleged that awarding of the punishment to all the petitioners by disqualifying them to appear for the university examination for a period of one year and cancelling of all the examinations written by the students in March/april, 2000, is illegal, arbitrary. ( 4 ) THE Superintendent of the Legal cell, Nagarjuna University, who was authorised to file counter on behalf of the respondents, has filed a counter affidavit, raising technical objections with regard to filing of affidavit on behalf of 160 petitioners. It is admitted that all the petitioners are the students of M. A. K. A Degree College, medarametla, Prakasam district, which is running since 1993, which is a Muslim minority institution. It is admitted that all the petitioners are the students of M. A. K. A Degree College, medarametla, Prakasam district, which is running since 1993, which is a Muslim minority institution. He has further stated that from the record of enquiry, it was clear that the management of this institution had indulged in several irregularities including the seating arrangements and also indulged in arranging invigilators to dictate the answers to each one of the questions in the examination hall itself in certain rooms and in certain other rooms all the students were allowed to indulge in mass copying which is evident from the statements from the students recorded on 24-3-2000 and the report of the flying squad. He has further stated that from the observations of the examiners to which the Special Officer of examinations had sent the answer scripts for valuation, it is evident that there is mass copying and even the students who received memos from the Special Officer of examinations stated in their reply that the lecturers dictated the answers in the examination hall and, therefore, the matter was placed before the Malpractices Enquiry committee which considered the entire material carefully at several meetings held on 9th, 12th, 18th, 19th and 26th September, 2000 and submitted the minutes to the Vice-Chancellor and ultimately, after considering the minutes of the Enquiry Committee, the Vice-Chancellor passed the impugned orders on 11-10-2000. He further raised a contention that the High Court has no power to substitute its opinion in the place of one recorded by the Enquiry committee, which had the advantage of considering the entire material placed before them and that the proceedings and findings of the Enquiry Committee had been finally considered by the Vice-Chancellor before passing the impugned order which is not vitiated by any error. It is, therefore, contended that there is no case, made out warranting interference by this Court with the conclusions arrived at by the University and sought for dismissal of the writ petition as merit less ( 5 ) ON the basis of facts and circumstances stated above, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that that the examinations were conducted very smoothly and the flying squad and the invigilators had submitted their reports every day without alleging the indulgence of malpractice at the examination centre viz. , m. A. K. A College. , m. A. K. A College. Further, when it is stated by the university in their counter that the management of the Institution had indulged in several irregularities including the seating arrangements and also including in arranging invigilators to dictate the answers to each one of the questions in the examination hall itself in certain rooms and in certain rooms all the students are allowed to indulge in mass copying which is evident from the statements from the students recorded on 24-3-2000 and the report of the flying squad, then the action of the respondents in announcing the result of the students belonging to B. V. R. and L. K. College and withholding the result of the students belonging to M. A. K. A. College, is arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of india. It is contended by the leaned Counsel for the petitioners that the above action of the respondents shows that they are completely biased towards the students who belong to M. A. K. A. College and they are wantonly and intentionally causing harm to the students who appeared from the said m. A. K. A. College. ( 6 ) TO appreciate the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners whether the students belonging to B. V. R. and l. K. College have indulged in mal practice or not and to find out the factual position, this Court, by order dated 21-12-2000, appointed one Mr. Ravishanker Jandhyala, advocate, as an Advocate Commissioner to enquire into the matter and submit a report so as to resolve the controversy involved, more so, when the lives of the students are involved. ( 7 ) THE learned Advocate- commissioner, after conducting an enquiry, submitted his report stating that he visited the Nagarjuna University on 8-1-2001 and the Registrar of the University deputed one mr. Shayam Sunder, who is a Professor in the Chemistry and Coordinator for squads and observers along with Sri A. Vaduevarao, who is a Special Officer for Examinations. The Counsel for the petitioners Mr Lingaiah chowdary and some of the petitioners had also attended the enquiry proceedings held in the Chamber of the Vice-Chancellor of the University. Shayam Sunder, who is a Professor in the Chemistry and Coordinator for squads and observers along with Sri A. Vaduevarao, who is a Special Officer for Examinations. The Counsel for the petitioners Mr Lingaiah chowdary and some of the petitioners had also attended the enquiry proceedings held in the Chamber of the Vice-Chancellor of the University. According to the commissioner, the Officers of the University produced all relevant documents including 320 answer scripts of the M. A. K. A. College and also the answer scripts of 13 students who were exonerated by the Malpractices enquiry Committee, except 186 papers of the students of B. V. R. and L. K. College who appeared from the same centre and for the same exams, whose results were declared. When the commissioner asked about the answer scripts of B. V. R. and. L. K. College, the University officers expressed their inability to produce the same on one pretext or the other. When the commissioner again asked for 186 papers finally and offered to stay next day i. e. , 9-1-2001, the University officers answered that the position may be same even on 9-1-2001 . According to the advocate Commissioner, the examinations for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd years of Degrees (B. Com. , B. A. , B. Sc.) were stopped in the m. A. K. A. College at Medarametla from 28-3-2000 due to complaints of malpractice. According to the University officers, Sri N. Sivarama Krishnaiah, Official Observer, had given a report to the University on 19-3-2000. According to the said Official observer, he had seen a news item in Eenadu paper which speaks about large scale malpractice, which perturbed him since he has been checking the students physically before just they are taking examinations by just sitting opposite to rooms and also had been visiting the rooms quite often i. e. , for every 40 minutes. The said Official Observer further stated that when he visited examination hall, all the invigilators were in the middle of the rooms and no student came out even for nature calls during examinations time and, therefore, he expressed his surprise about the comments made in the news papers and requested the University to unfold the mystery going on in the college. However, it is clarified by the University officers that the said N. Siva Rama Krishnaiah, who is the Official Observer of the examinations, had not complained of any malpractices till he saw the item in the news paper. According to the University officers, Mr. Siva Rama krishnaiah, the official Observer had visited all the three class rooms where examinations were going on every day between 8 to 11 a. m. and 2 to 5 p. m. i. e. , in the morning and after noon and he had been doing the same in regular intervals and further the squad specially appointed by the University was visiting and checking the examination halls and the students physically every day. It is further stated that on 24-3-2000 one Mr. B. Shyam Sunder Moulali and 2 others visited the examination centre, M. A. K. A College, as a surprise check apart from the squad and observer and they had checked every student physically and could get no copying slips or texts or any other material, but however, they found copy material/slips being kept on the table of the invigilator and when they questioned about the same, the invigilator answered that before the commencement of the examination when he asked all the students to remove any paper, book or slips whatever it is carried/kept by the students, the same has been handed to the invigilator at 2-00 p. m. , and that the squad visited the hall at 2-10 by which time the said material was not removed by the invigilator from the table. ( 8 ) ACCORDING to the Commissioner, during the course of enquiry, when he asked about the booking of any case of mal practice, the officers of the University mentioned that though they had intensified the Observers and the surprise visits of the squads, they could not get any copying material, evidence of mass copying, etc. But, however, on 25-3-2000, the University had taken a decision to stop conducting examinations in M. A. K. A College and the same was stopped from 28-3-2000 and the examination centre was shifted to SSN college, Ongole. According to the commissioner, when he asked about the conduction of the examinations at SSN degree college, Ongole and the appointment of observers and squads etc. According to the commissioner, when he asked about the conduction of the examinations at SSN degree college, Ongole and the appointment of observers and squads etc. , whether there was any complaint of mal practice from the ssn College or any body, the University officers replied that no Observer was appointed and no squad was sent to check as they had not thought it necessary for appointment of observer and squad and further there was no complaint of mal practice from the said SSN College or any body. ( 9 ) THE Commissioner also submitted his report with regard to sitting arrangement and he also opined that the answer scripts of all the students under Nagarjuna university were valued much before the publication of the results including the students of B. V. R and L. K. College students papers, who took exams in M. A. K. A. College centre, where mass copying is alleged. The Malpractice Enquiry Committee was appointed On 11-6-1999 and the results of the 1st and 2nd year Degree (B. Com. , B. A, B. Sc.) were published on 15-6-2000. The Advocate Commissioner has also considered the opinions of the Valuers, which were made available to him. According to the Commissioner, most of the special valuers are all from JKC College, and majority of them had given their opinion on 19-6-2000 and few of them did not give the dates of their opinion and two of them had even used same language, verbatim, but changed the paragraphs in the serial and surprisingly, the Malpractice Enquiry committee recorded in minutes also on 19-6-2000. ( 10 ) ACCORDING to the Commissioner, almost all the students had given their explanation denying the allegations levelled by the Special Officer in his notice. No student has admitted to be involved in mal practice and no student appeared before the enquiry Committee. He also opined that the lecturers/invigilators who were posted in room Nos. 1, 2 and 3 on 24-6-2000 do not teach the subject of the examinations conducted in the respective rooms and no material was seized from any of the students as stated by the University officers on that day. He also opined that the lecturers/invigilators who were posted in room Nos. 1, 2 and 3 on 24-6-2000 do not teach the subject of the examinations conducted in the respective rooms and no material was seized from any of the students as stated by the University officers on that day. When the Commissioner asked the university officers about the issue of mass copying and under what circumstances the university exempt one college by not sending the 186 answer scripts of the students of the b. V. R and L. K. College, they replied that they have not felt it necessary to send. According to the Commissioner, the only ground for exonerating them seems to be that they have written similar or same answers to some questions, but the answers to the other questions are totally different and, therefore, he opined that they are not the cases of mass copy/group copy, but only stray individual cases. ( 11 ) THE respondents have filed their objections to the Commissioner s report. It is submitted that the reason for not producing the 186 answer scripts of B. V. R. and L. K. College is that they were not produced on 8-1-2002 as they were not traceable and mixed with about 4 Lakhs of other answer scripts in about 1200 bundles. They have mainly stressed on the indulgence of the management of the m. A. K. A. College in allowing the students to have the alleged mal practice in the examination. It is stated that the students of b. V. R and L. K. College, though appeared from the same centre, the sitting arrangements were so made without mixing up with the students of M. A. K. A. College, writing the same subject. It is submitted that when there is allegation of mal practice expressed by the examiners, they will be dealt with separately and as there was no allegation against the students of B. V. R. and l. K. College, the matter against them was not referred to the Malpractice Enquiry committee. ( 12 ) AS per the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is admitted by the University Authorities, the Official observer of the University, as per the statement of the Flying Squad and invigilators that the examination went on smoothly at M. A. K. A. College Centre. ( 12 ) AS per the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is admitted by the University Authorities, the Official observer of the University, as per the statement of the Flying Squad and invigilators that the examination went on smoothly at M. A. K. A. College Centre. As seen from the statements of the Official observer of the Examinations, Invigilators and the Flying Squad, they have not noticed any mass copying at the Centre. But after noticing news flash in Eenadu, the Official observer, N. Sivarama Krishnaiah, for the first time, voluntarily submitted a report to the University perhaps to save his skin, at the same time the University Authorities also woke up from the nest and conducted preliminary enquiry and came to the conclusion that the Management of the centre has made arrangement for mass copying. According to the statements of the university Authorities, from the record of the enquiry it is clear that the Management of this institution has indulged in several irregularities including the seating arrangements and also indulged in arranging invigilators to dictate the answers to each of the questions in the examination hall itself in certain rooms and in certain other rooms all the students were allowed to indulge in mass copying which is evident from the statements of the students recorded on 24-3-2000. The respondents have taken decision to shift the Centre from MAKA Degree college, Medarametla to SSN College, ongole from 30-3-2000. When once the examinations are conducted in SSN College, ongole from 30-3-2000 to the last examination, the respondents should have declared the results of the remaining papers written by the petitioners in SSN College instead of withholding the results and imposing the punishment of debarring the students from appearing in the examinations for a period of one year upto March- april, 2001 as per the Malpractice Rules. It is every much relevant to note that when there is an allegation that the Management has indulged in several irregularities including the seating arrangements and also indulged in arranging invigilators to dictate the answers to each of the questions in the examination hall itself in certain rooms and in certain other rooms all the students were allowed to indulge in mass copying which is evident from the statements of the students recorded on 24-3-2000, the University would have sent the answer sheets written by the students of other Colleges i. e. , B. V. R. and l. K. College to special Examiners for verification, in all fairness. The explanation given by the University Authorities that they thought it necessary to send the answers sheets of the students of MAKA College only to Special Examiners, is not satisfying the Court for the reason that when the allegation is against the entire Centre itself and the statements made by the University authorities in their first counter affidavit that the Management of the MAKA College indulged in irregularities in arranging seating and invigilators, sending of answer sheets of a particular college i. e. , MAKA College alone leaving the answer sheets of the students of B. V. R. and L. K. College amounts to discrimination and showing favouritism and showing vindictive attitude of the university Authorities. When there is news item in the local new papers, the University authorities have started enquiry into the matter instead of taking appropriate steps to conduct the examination in a strict way. I am unable to accede to the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the University that the decision of the Vice-Chancellor is based on the opinion of the Expert committee constituted by the University i. e. , malpractice Committee, and, therefore, the court should not interfere with the decision of the Vice-Chancellor in the interest of the academic Institutions. Had this decision been arrived at by the University Authorities in a fair and reasonable manner, certainly the court will not interfere with the decision so arrived at by the Academic Institutions, but in this case it is different. After going through the material placed before me, I am satisfied that the University Authorities have not acted properly as they are expected to act under law. After going through the material placed before me, I am satisfied that the University Authorities have not acted properly as they are expected to act under law. I have no hesitation to hold that the management of the MAKA Degree College, the Official Observer, the Invigilators, Flying squad of the University have contributed their part to make the students indulge in malpractice and further made the students who have attended the examination at the centre of MAKA College to suffer for no fault of theirs. At this stage, it is not appropriate to direct the respondents to revalue the answer sheets of the students of b. V. R. and L. K. college in view of long passage of time. ( 13 ) IN those circumstances, to meet the ends of justice the only relief that can be granted to the petitioners is to set aside the punishment imposed on them for no fault of them disqualifying them to appear from any University Examinations for a period of one year (two chances) with effect from March/april, 2000 and they were permitted to appear for the University examinations to be held in March/april, 2001 onwards. As seen from the material placed before this Court for its consideration, this Court has satisfied that the University authorities, the Invigilators, the Official observer, the Flying Squad and the management of the MAKA College examination Centre have miserably failed to discharge their duties in conducting the examinations in a proper manner as contemplated under the Rules of the university Examinations and made the petitioners to suffer and lose their valuable time and carry the stigma of disqualifying to appear for one year in the University examinations for the year March/april, 2000 throughout their life. ( 14 ) IN those circumstances, the impugned order of the Vice-Chancellor, nagarjuna University, Nagarjuna Nagar, i. e. NU/ss2/mec/march/april, 2000 dated 11-10-2000 insofar as disqualifying the petitioners to appear for any University examinations is from March/april, 2000 is set aside in the interest of justice and the writ petition is disposed of accordingly, but in the circumstances without costs. ( 14 ) IN those circumstances, the impugned order of the Vice-Chancellor, nagarjuna University, Nagarjuna Nagar, i. e. NU/ss2/mec/march/april, 2000 dated 11-10-2000 insofar as disqualifying the petitioners to appear for any University examinations is from March/april, 2000 is set aside in the interest of justice and the writ petition is disposed of accordingly, but in the circumstances without costs. ( 15 ) BEFORE parting with the judgment, i would like to record my dissatisfaction and anguish at the attitude of the Registrar, nagarjuna University in not co-operating with the Advocate-Commissioner, who was appointed by this Court to enquire into the matter and submit his report with regard to the allegation that both the students of both maka Degree College and B. V. R. and L. K. College are involved in mass copying or not, but the Registrar of the University has shown adament attitude forgetting the fact that the Advocate-Commissioner is a court. Not providing the answer sheets of b. V. R. and L. K. College for his verification amounts to Contempt of Court. This Court initially thought of initiating suo motu contempt against the Registrar, but accepting the unconditional apology tendered in his counter-affidavit, I though it appropriate to warn him not to repeat the same attitude in his future service in the interest of justice.