JUDGMENT Augustine George Masih, J.:- By this order, we propose to dispose of four writ petitions i.e. C.W.P.No.17391 of 2008 (Piyush Mandhar and others vs. Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar and others, C.W.P.No.17683 of 2008 (Sahil Uppal vs. Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar and others), C.W.P.No.l8742 of 2008 (Barinder Pal Singh vs. Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar and others) and C.W.P.No.17858 of 2008 (Komal Preet Kaur Ahluwalia vs. Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar and others) as common questions of facts and law are involved therein. 2. The petitioners in this set of writ petitions are students of BA, LL.B. Five Years Course who joined Saint Soldier Law College, Jalandhar, in the Session 2004-2005, the said Course is a Five Years Integrated Course with two semesters in each year (hereinafter referred to as FYIC). The petitioners appeared in the final examination of the 6th semester of the LL.B in the month of April/May, 2007 which consisted of five papers prescribed for the said semester. Vide notification No. LL.B.(FYIC) 6th semester/M­-2007/I dated 24.9.2007, the result was notified by the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as the University). In the said notification, the result of the petitioners was indicated as RL(UMC). On 5.10.2007, a registered letter was received by all the petitioners asking them to appear before the Standing Committee constituted for Unfair Means Cases on 20.10.2007 at 9.00 A.M. in the University Senate Hall. In the said letter, it was also mentioned that why action should not be initiated against the petitioners under the Prevention of Unfair Means Procedure and Punishment Ordinance 11 along with Ordinance 10(h) (ii) and (j) of the University Calendar, Volume III 1999. Vide letter dated 16.10.2007 (Annexure P-4), the University informed the petitioners that the hearing before the Standing Committee fixed for 20.10.2007 stood adjourned to 23.10.2007 at 10.00 A.M. Accordingly, the petitioners appeared before the Standing Committee on 23.10.2007 and submitted that the allegations were totally false and imaginary as no incriminating material was recovered from their possession and none of the petitioners was found copying by the Supervisory Staff so appointed by the University. It was, therefore, contended by them that they have not committed any offence under Section 10 (h) (ii) and (j) of Ordinance 10 of the University Calendar, Volume III 1999. 3. It was, therefore, contended by them that they have not committed any offence under Section 10 (h) (ii) and (j) of Ordinance 10 of the University Calendar, Volume III 1999. 3. The Committee upon hearing the petitioners on 23.10.2007 being not satisfied with the explanation put forth by the petitioners prima facie opined that all the petitioners prima facie had violated the provisions of Ordinance 10(h) (ii) and (j) of the University Calendar, Volume III 1999. However, under the circumstances of the case, the Committee felt desirable for holding of a detailed regular enquiry from some suitable person in order to unravel the truth so as to enable the Committee to take appropriate decision in the matter. Accordingly, the opinion of the experts was sought. Later, the enquiry was marked to Shri G.S. Khurana, District & Sessions Judge (Retd.). 4. During the pendency of these proceedings before the Standing Committee constituted for the Unfair Means Cases, the petitioners completed their studies under the 7th semester but since they were not allowed to appear in the examination for the 7th semester which was to commence on 21.11.2007, they preferred Civil Writ Petition No.18015 of 2007 Piyush Mandhar & ors. vs. Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar and others praying therein that they be allowed to appear in the 7th semester examination. In the meantime, the petitioners were allowed to appear provisionally in the 7th semester examination. The writ petition came up for hearing on 8.2.2008 before this Court when the same was disposed of on the statement given by the counsel for the respondent-University that the petitioners would be provisionally permitted to appear in the 8th semester examination subject to the final outcome of their cases before the Unfair Means Committee. It was further stated that the result of the 7th semester examination of the petitioners would be declared provisionally subject to their clearing the examination. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with the directions to the University as per the undertaking. 5. Shri G.S.Khurana, District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) who was appointed as the Inquiry Officer, submitted a detailed enquiry report on 17.4.2008 wherein the students/Supervisory Staff of the examination Centre were called and their statements were also recorded. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with the directions to the University as per the undertaking. 5. Shri G.S.Khurana, District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) who was appointed as the Inquiry Officer, submitted a detailed enquiry report on 17.4.2008 wherein the students/Supervisory Staff of the examination Centre were called and their statements were also recorded. On the basis of the report of the Inquiry Officer, the matter was again considered by the Standing Committee in its meeting held on 13.6.2008 and a decision was taken therein to disqualify all the petitioners from appearing in any examination of the University for a period of three years from April/May 2007 onwards under Ordinance 10(h) (ii) and (j) read with Ordinance 11-b of the University Calendar, Volume III 1999. The Standing Committee on the basis of the enquiry report further recommended that the University may initiate action against the Supervisory Staff which consisted of Ms. Jyotsana, the Central Superintendent and Officiating Principal of the Saint Soldier Law College, Jalandhar, Ms. Rinka Rani, Central Supervisor and Ms. Rajnish Kaur, Deputy Superintendent (outside) for not only turning a blind eye but also helping the petitioners in indulging in mass copying, under Ordinance 17 at page 82 of the University Calendar, Volume III 1999. Chapter X (i) Prevention, Punishment and Procedure concerning cases of misconduct and use of unfair means in or in relation to the examination. 6. The decision of the Standing Committee constituted for unfair means was conveyed to the Principal of Saint Soldier Law College, Jalandhar and also the petitioners by the University vide its letter dated 22.8.2008. The petitioners filed a statutory appeal to the Vice Chancellor for setting aside the order dated 22.8.2008 imposing punishment upon them. The Vice Chancellor of the University rejected their appeal which was conveyed by the University to the petitioners vide letter dated 23.9.2008. Through these writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging the decision dated 13.6.2008 of the Standing Committee constituted for Unfair Means Cases which was so conveyed to the petitioners vide letter dated 22.8.2008 and also the decision of the Vice Chancellor of the University rejecting the appeal of the petitioners which was conveyed vide letter dated 23.9.2008. 7. We have heard counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the respondent-University and have gone through the records of the case with their able assistance. 8. The facts are not in dispute. 7. We have heard counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the respondent-University and have gone through the records of the case with their able assistance. 8. The facts are not in dispute. It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioners that the case of the petitioners is not covered under Clause 10 (h) (ii) and 10 (j) of Ordinance 10 of the University Calendar, Volume III 1999. For making this submission, counsel for the petitioners states that neither any incriminating material has been found from the possession of the petitioners nor any report has been submitted by the Supervisory Staff stating therein that any copying or attempt for copying from any objectionable material. Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the punishment which has been meted out to the petitioners is on the higher side and a lenient view should have been taken in the matter in the light of the fact that the career of the students was at stake and that too when it is a case of suspicion only. No documentary proof which could justify the decision reached by the Unfair Means Committee constituted for dealing with the case of the petitioners, has been put forth in the form of any material. There is no report of the Flying Squad or the Special Observer or the Local Controller of Examinations or the Centre Superintendent which would justify the decision taken by the Standing Committee so challenged by the petitioners. It is further their submission that the petitioners have not been dealt with in a fair manner as no incriminating material was found from their possession and thus, the findings are imaginary and not corroborated by any evidence. There being no evidence on record justifying the decision taken against the petitioners, the decision itself is not sustainable and deserves to be quashed. Even if the findings which have been recorded by the Standing Committee are accepted to be correct, then also the punishment which has been awarded to the students is an arbitrary exercise of powers as the minimum punishment which has been prescribed, should have been awarded to the petitioners as there was no direct evidence connecting the petitioners with the act for which they have been accused of. Their further submission is that even the Vice Chancellor of the University has not considered the submissions made by the petitioners and without applying judicious mind and scrutinizing the evidence, has rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioners. On the basis of these submissions, it has been prayed that the impugned orders to be quashed and the petitioners be allowed to continue with their studies. In any case, a further submission has been made that a lenient view needs to be taken in the matter and the minimum punishment prescribed may be imposed on the petitioners keeping in view the fact that the career of the students is involved. 9. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has justified the decision taken by the Standing Committee as well as the Vice Chancellor of the University. He has submitted that the Courts should refrain themselves from interfering in the orders passed in educational matters. He submits that the case of the petitioners is fully covered under the provisions under which they have been held guilty. The principles of natural justice have been fully complied with, firstly before the Standing Committee dealing with the case of the unfair means and thereafter during the enquiry proceedings before the retired District & Sessions Judge. The petitioners were also heard in person. During the enquiry proceedings, the statements of the petitioners as well as the Supervisory Staff were recorded, the answer sheets were gone through, opinion of the experts was taken into consideration, whereafter a decision was taken for imposing the punishment upon the petitioners. The petitioners have been fairly dealt with by the University and all opportunities have been granted to the petitioners to put-forth their stand and to explain the allegations which have been levelled against them. That being the position, there is neither any violation of principles of natural justice nor any violation of statutory rules or legal principle which would call for interference by this Court. 10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions put-forth by the parties as well as the records of the case. It would not be out of way to mention here that during the proceedings of these cases, the Court had called for the production of answer sheets of the petitioners in a sealed cover. 10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions put-forth by the parties as well as the records of the case. It would not be out of way to mention here that during the proceedings of these cases, the Court had called for the production of answer sheets of the petitioners in a sealed cover. The said records were perused by the Court and the assertion of the University and the report of the Inquiry Officer was ­ found to be correct. 11. Now we proceed to consider the submission of the counsel for the petitioners. The first assertion put-forth is that the case of the petitioners does not fall within the ambit of Ordinance 10 and 11 of the University Calendar, Volume III 1999. The relevant provisions, reliance whereof has been made by the counsel for the petitioners, are reproduced hereunder: “Chapter X i) PREVENTION, PUNISHMENT AND PROCEDURE CONCERNING CASES OF MISCONDUCT AND USE OF UNFAIR MEANS IN OR IN RELATION TO EXAMINATION. PART-I- GENERAL 1. These Ordinances may be called Ordinances relating to Prevention, Punishment and Procedure concerning cases of misconduct and use of Unfair Means in or in relation to Examinations” and be abbreviated as “Ordinances relating to Unfair Means Cases.” 2 to 4: xxxx xxxx 5. Every day, before the examination begins, the Superintendent or the Deputy Superintendent, as the case may be, shall call upon the candidates to search their persons/pockets, etc., and part with and deliver to him all papers, books and/or notes which they may be having in their possession. Where a late comer is admitted, this warning shall be given to him before he is permitted to take the examination. The. Superintendent or the Deputy Superintendent, as the case may be, and both, when there is a Superintendent as well as a Deputy Superintendent - in-charge of the examination, shall forward to the Registrar every day a declaration certifying compliance with this provision. 6. The Superintendent shall report to the Registrar without delay and on the day of occurrence, if possible, each case where the use of unfair means in the examination is detected, giving details of the evidence and explanation of the candidate concerned on Form Ec- 20. Provided that in case of non-availability of Form Ec-20 the case may be reported on photostat copy or Form Ec-20 or on a plain paper. Provided that in case of non-availability of Form Ec-20 the case may be reported on photostat copy or Form Ec-20 or on a plain paper. Provided further that in exceptional circumstances the case can also be reported by the members of the flying squad or the Special Observer or the Local Controller of the Examination or Centre Superintendent directly on a plain paper. Non-reporting of an unfair means case shall be deemed as dereliction of duty making the defaulting member of the Supervisory Staff liable for being debarred from all remunerative work of the university and further, he shall not be paid any remuneration for the examination in which the dereliction takes place. PART-II -OFFENCES AND PUNISHMENT 10 (a) to (g) xxx x xxxx 10 (h) (i) Copying or attempting to copy from the objectionable material found in his possession; or (ii )Copying or attempting to copy from another candidate; or (iii) Assisting another candidate to from the objectionable material in his possession or from his answer-book. 10 (j) Receiving help or attempting to receive help for answering the question paper from any source in any manner, inside or outside the examination hall. 11.1 A candidate of found guilty committing any one or more of the offences under Ordinance 10 supra shall be disqualified from appearing in any examination of the university for the period specified as under: (a) xxx xxx xxx xxx (b) For offences under clauses (a), (d), (e), (g), (h), (j), (k), (m), (w) and (y):-­Disqualification for a period of not less than 2 years.” 12. A perusal of the above provisions would show that Part I deals with the general provisions and the steps which the Supervisory Staff is required to take before and during the examination. Part II deals with the offence and punishment. 13. The provisions under which the petitioners have been found guilty are Ordinance 10 (h) (ii) and (j). Now we proceed to go through the proceedings before the Standing Committee (Unfair Means Committee) wherein the case of the petitioners was dealt with. In the said proceedings, the report dated 17.4.2008 as submitted by Shri G.S.Khurana, District & Sessions Judge (Retd.), who was appointed as the Inquiry Officer, has been referred to, which reads as follows:- “The relevant gist of the report runs as under: i) Paper-1 Constitutional Law-II There is no copying by two students bearing Roll Nos.5652 and 5657. In the said proceedings, the report dated 17.4.2008 as submitted by Shri G.S.Khurana, District & Sessions Judge (Retd.), who was appointed as the Inquiry Officer, has been referred to, which reads as follows:- “The relevant gist of the report runs as under: i) Paper-1 Constitutional Law-II There is no copying by two students bearing Roll Nos.5652 and 5657. The remaining 11 students formed five sub groups and copied from one another groupwise. ii) Paper-If Law of Crimes-II All the 13 students have committed group copying from one another and also by dictation. iii) Paper-III Jurisprudence All the 13 students indulged in group copying by dictation and from one another. iv) Paper-IV Specific Contracts Similarly, all the 13 students availed of dictation and group copying from one another. v) Law Relating to Local Government 12 students formed three groups and committed group copying from one another. Copying by one student roll No.5661 is doubtful. There is absolutely no merit in the tutored version of the students that each student used to prepare individual notes from the text books and class lessons and exchange with others and thus their answers are common. Had it been so, spelling, grammatical errors, sometimes even phonetics, would not have occurred. Except one student (Roll No.5651) none was able to tell the name of authors of text books, from where notes were prepared. Another student (Roll No.5663) fairly stated that almost all students had prepared from Guide Books. According to him, there was complete unity among all the thirteen students of the class. The “Unity is there for all to see.” xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 14. The Committee has further stated as follows:- “In view of the above referred detailed report of the Inquiry Officer and all the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no option but to hold that all the 13 students appeared in B.A.LL.B. 6th Semester Examination April/May, 2007 in the following papers: i) Jurisprudence, ii) Constitutional Law-II, iii) Law of Crimes-II, iv) Specific Contracts, v) Law relating to Local Self Government have indulged themselves in common dictation in different groups as mentioned by Inquiry Officer. This attracts the provision of Ordinances 10(h) (ii) and 10(j) read with Ordinance 11 (b) of GNDU Calendar Vol-III, 1999. This attracts the provision of Ordinances 10(h) (ii) and 10(j) read with Ordinance 11 (b) of GNDU Calendar Vol-III, 1999. The Committee, therefore, disqualifies all the 13 students from appearing in any examination to be conducted by this University for a period of three years from April/May, 2007 onwards.” 15. A perusal of the above would show that the claim of the petitioners does not fall within the ambit of the Ordinance under which they have been held guilty is totally devoid of any merit as the report clearly shows the applicability of the provisions under which the petitioners have been found guilty. It would not be out of place to mention here at the cost of repetition that the Court had on an earlier date during the proceedings called for the answer sheets of the petitioners and on perusal of the same the findings as recorded by the inquiry Officer were found to be correct. 16. There is clear evidence against the petitioners holding them guilty of indulging themselves in common dictation in different groups and, therefore, the finding and the decision reached by the Standing Committee is in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance 10 of the University Calendar, Volume III, 1999. There being no illegality or violation of any statutory provisions, the same does not call for any interference by this Court. 17. That being so, the contention of the petitioners with regard to the lenient view, to be taken in the present matter also cannot be accepted. What to say of students in this case, the Supervisory Staff also, as a matter of fact, have failed to perform their duties and accordingly the Committee ­has rightly recommended that the University may initiate action against the Supervisory Staff also. The assertion of the petitioners that no material was found there in the possession of the petitioners nor any material has been produced which could be termed as evidence against the petitioners to corroborate the factum of copying allegedly indulged into by the petitioners, also cannot help the petitioners in view of the fact that the Supervisory Staff had also indulged in helping the petitioners in mass copying. They had not only turned a blind eye but also appeared to have actively indulged in helping the petitioners in their ill-motive. They had not only turned a blind eye but also appeared to have actively indulged in helping the petitioners in their ill-motive. The standard of education is deteriorating and the major reason for that is the involvement such like Supervisory Staff while conducting the examinations. Apart from the insincerity on the part of the teachers and the students with lack of will and zeal to attain knowledge, the endeavour to seek education by the students should not merely be for attaining the degrees but to attain knowledge so that they can put it to right use for the benefit of the society and the country. The motivation and the enthusiasm is lacking both on the part of the teachers and the taught which is apparent in the present case. No leniency therefore, is called for in the present case. The punishment awarded to the petitioners is in accordance with the provisions governing their cases and we do not find any reason to interfere with the same. 18. It would also not be out of way to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the ease of Director (Studies) and others vs. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan (Civil Appeal No.34 of 2008) while deciding the matter relating with the Unfair Means Cases in the examinations vide its order dated 4.11.2008 has come down heavily against the mal-practices dated practices crippling the system which call for strict and severe punishments. In paras 18, 24 and 32 it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as follows: “ xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 18. The learned Single Judge in the interim order has then emphasized on the fact that the respondent had apologized and has confessed to the possession of the chit. In our opinion, this again is a misplaced sympathy. We are of the firm opinion that in academic matters there should be strict discipline and malpractices should be severely punished. If our country is to progress we must maintain high educational standards, and this is only possible if malpractices in examinations in educational institutions are curbed with an iron hand. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 24. We are afraid we cannot agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. As already stated above, we have to be very strict in maintaining high academic standards and maintaining academic discipline and academic rigour if our country is to progress. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 24. We are afraid we cannot agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. As already stated above, we have to be very strict in maintaining high academic standards and maintaining academic discipline and academic rigour if our country is to progress. Sympathy for students using unfair means is wholly out of place. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 32.Before parting with this case, we would like to refer to the decisions of this Court which has repeatedly held that the High Court should not ordinarily interfere with the orders passed in educational matters by domestic tribunals set up by educational institutions vide Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P.­ Allahabad and another vs. Bagleshwar Prasad and another AIR 1966 SC 875 (vide para 12), Dr.J.P. Kulshrestha and others vs. Chancellor, Allahabad University and others, AIR 1980 SC 2141 (vide para 17), Rajendra Prasad Mathur vs. Karnataka University and another AIR 1986 SC 1448 (vide para 7). We wish to reiterate the view taken in the above decisions, and further state that the High Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the functioning and order of the educational authorities unless there is clear violation of some statutory rule or legal principle. Also, there must be strict purity in the examinations of educational institutions and no sympathy or leniency should be shown to candidates who resort to unfair means in the examinations. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in any of the petitions and dismiss the same. --------------