Amitava Roy, J.;- The petitions, in series, project the petitioner's initial grievance against non-declaration of his results of B. Com Final Year Examination of 2005, on re-evaluation, as prayed for and eventually, his assailment of the decision of the Assam University, Silchar (hereafter for short referred to as the 'University') to cancel his entire three years degree course, B. Com Examination of 2005 and to further debar him from appearing in any university examination for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008. 2. I have heard Mr. R. P. Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. A. Nath, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. N. Choudhury, learned counsel for the University. 3. The abbreviated pleadings of the parties presenting their respective cases, are to be essentially noticed at the outset. The petitioner has averred that he having passed the H. S Final Year Examination in 2002, took admission in the Assam College, Silchar. (hereafter for short referred to as the 'College'), in the Commerce stream for pursuing the three years degree course in the year 2002-2003. He was, accordingly, assigned the registration number as 04-3447 of 2002-03 by the University. On completion of the course, he appeared in the B. Com Part-Ill Examination as a regular candidate held from 10th of March, 2005 with the Roll-C-305 No. 1040880, as per the admit card issued to him by the Controller of Examination, Assam University, Silchar. In the results of the examination declared in July, 2005, it transpired that the petitioner had failed in three subjects, namely, Financial Accountancy, Business Law and Business Environment. Being dissatisfied, the petitioner on 29.07.2005 applied for reevaluation of the answer scripts in the said three subjects by paying necessary fee therefor, through the Principal of his College. On 06.12.2005, the results of reevaluation were announced to have been withheld. The petitioner vide his application dated 30.01.2006. requested the Controller of Examination, Assam University, through the Principal of his College to declare the results of reevaluation of the answer scripts. He was, thereafter asked by the Principal of the College to submit the original University Registration Certificate, Admit Cards and Mark Sheets of Part-I and Part-II B. Com Examination to the Controller of Examination through him. The petitioner, accordingly, submitted the documents as sought for, to the Principal of the College on 05.02.2006. He was, thereafter asked by the Principal of the College to submit the original University Registration Certificate, Admit Cards and Mark Sheets of Part-I and Part-II B. Com Examination to the Controller of Examination through him. The petitioner, accordingly, submitted the documents as sought for, to the Principal of the College on 05.02.2006. As the results of the reevaluation were not forthcoming, the petitioner submitted a reminder before the Controller of Examination, Assam University, through the Principal of his College on 22.05.2006. He reiterated his request on 15.09.2006. In the meantime, the results of B. Com Part-Ill Examination 2006, had been declared. Situated thus, the petitioner approached this Court with W. P. (C) No. 5558/2006, praying for a direction to the respondents therein, to declare the results of his result of the B. Com Final Year Examination 2005, following the re-evaluation of his answer scripts, as prayed for. It is thereafter that by the impugned notification dated 14.11.2006, issued by the Controller of Examination, his entire three years degree course examination of 2005, was cancelled and he was also debarred from appearing in any University examination for the years 2006-07 and 2008. 4. The University, in its counter, while admitting that the petitioner had appeared in the B. Corn Part-Ill Examination as a regular candidate of pass course (new) from the College with the roll number claimed by him, has maintained that in the B. Com Part-I Examination of the year 2003, he could not pass in Financial Accounts and he was promoted to Part-I I of the course with back paper in that subject. In the Part-II Examination of the year, 2004, he failed in the said paper again in his second attempt. He also was unsuccessful in clearing Business Law of the Part-II course. He was accorded promotion to the TDC Part-Ill and appeared in the four regular papers of that year along with two back papers in Financial Accounts and Business Law of the previous years. In the TDC Part-Ill Examination that was held in the year 2005 as well, the petitioner could not clear the back papers and in addition to, also failed in Business Environment. He was thus, on an overall assessment, declared to have failed. In the TDC Part-Ill Examination that was held in the year 2005 as well, the petitioner could not clear the back papers and in addition to, also failed in Business Environment. He was thus, on an overall assessment, declared to have failed. While pointing out that the petitioners's application for re-evaluation of the aforementioned three papers forwarded to the University on 26.08.2005, was beyond the time prescribed therefor, on a scrutiny of the said papers some anomalies were detected, leading to the suspicion that the petitioner might have adopted unfair means by smuggling loose sheets of previous years' in the examination hall and had incorporated the same in his answers scripts. The results on re-evaluation, were thus withheld. According to the answering respondent, the Principal of the College, was thus requested to requisition the petitioner's mark sheets for the B. Com Part I, II and III Examinations, the admit cards and registration certificate in original and considering the gravity of the issue, the matter was referred to the Examination Discipline Committee (for short referred to as the' Committee'), which after holding a full fledged inquiry concluded that he had adopted unfair means in the examination hall. The following discrepancies were determined: "1. The inner pages of the main answer scripts were found replaced. The perforation of letters 'AUS' on the cover page did not match with the perforation of the letter 'AUS'. 2. The loose sheets used were of TDC Examination 2004, whereas, the loose sheets used by the rest of the examinees of said papers are TDC Examination of 2005. 3. The confidential Centre Code seal affixed on main answer script do not match with Centre Code seal affixed on the loose sheets. 4. Signature of the Invigilator on the loose sheets in question also was found suspicious." 5. The impugned decision, vis-a-vis the petitioner, was thereafter taken, imposing on him the punishment under Clause 4 (j), 8 (iv) of the Ordinance No. 4 of the Ordinance framed under the Assam University Act, 1989 (hereafter for short referred to as the 'Ordinance'). The respondent also questioned the maintainability of the writ petition for not having availed the alternative remedy of appeal available to him under the Ordinance. The respondent also questioned the maintainability of the writ petition for not having availed the alternative remedy of appeal available to him under the Ordinance. It has been clarified that though the petitioner's result pertain to the TDC Part-II Examination, 2005, by the time his case was decided, examination indiscipline cases relatable to the Examination of 2006, had also come up before the Committee and that therefore, in the notification dated 14.11.2006, the results of the enquiry involving him and the action taken thereon, were declared thereby. 6. In his affidavit-in-reply, the petitioner has categorically denied the allegation of adopting unfair means said to have been resorted to by him and has also in clear terms questioned the correctness and validity of the findings recorded by the Committee. According to the petitioner, the impugned decision has been taken in retaliation to his move to approach this Court for redress and to jeopardize his academic career. 7. Mr. Sharma, argued that the impugned decision of cancelling the petitioner's B. Com TDC Examinations and further debarring him from appearing him in any examination of University for the year 2006.2007 and 2008. besides being patently illegal and unwarranted, is non est in law being violative of the principles of natural justice. As the petitioner was neither intimated of the alleged anomalies nor afforded any opportunity to represent against the same, the impugned notification is ineffectual, null and void, he urged. The learned senior counsel, contended that the letter dated 08.12.2005 (Annexure-1 to the University's counter), not having been served on the petitioner, he had no inkling of the accusations contained therein and, therefore, the impugned action, on the face, is unfair, unreasonable and unjust. The allegations levelled against the petitioner, are unfounded and the decision under challenge, lacks in bonafide and has been taken to cover up the lapse of the University in declaring the petitioner's results on re-evaluation in time, he urged. 8. In reply, Mr. Choudhury, has urged that it being apparent from the letter dated 30.01.2006 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) that the petitioner had at all relevant times being aware of the imputation of adoption of unfair means by him in the examination hall, the plea of want of fairness is clearly untenable. 8. In reply, Mr. Choudhury, has urged that it being apparent from the letter dated 30.01.2006 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) that the petitioner had at all relevant times being aware of the imputation of adoption of unfair means by him in the examination hall, the plea of want of fairness is clearly untenable. In fact, he furnished the documents as sought for, being cognizant of the charge and did not have at any point of time offered to represent further in connection therewith, he pleaded. Referring to Clause 7 of the Ordinance, Mr. Choudhury, argued that no prescription of a predecisional hearing is mandated thereby and if aggrieved, the candidate concerned can avail the remedy in Clause (g) thereof. As neither the validity of Clause 7 has been challenged nor the relief/ remedy allowable under Clause (g) thereof, has been availed by the petitioner, having regard to the seriousness of the charge, this Court in the interest of academic administration, would not interfere with the impugned decision, he urged. Mr. Choudhury has produced the answer scripts of the petitioner in the subjects involved and the decision of the Committee with its findings for the perusal of this Court. 9. The pleadings of the parties and the arguments advanced, have been duly noticed. Admittedly, the unfair means alleged against the petitioner, had not been detected in course of the examinations, while he was writing the same. The concerned authorities of the University seem to have observed the possibility thereof, while entertaining his application for re-evaluation of the answer scripts in Financial Accounts, Business Law and Business Environment, as sought for. The Controller of Examination, Assam University, by his letter dated 08.12.2005. addressed to the Principal of the College indicated that prima facie, some anomalies had been detected in the answer scripts of the candidate with RollC-305 No. 1040880, who had applied for re-evaluation of his answer scripts in the above subjects. It was disclosed therein that the candidate had used loose sheets of the examination year 2004 and that the seal of Confidential Code Centre got affixed on the loose sheet, did not match with the sheets used on the top cover as well as the loose sheets of other candidates. The documents referred to therein in original, were therefore, requested to be obtained from the candidate concerned. The documents referred to therein in original, were therefore, requested to be obtained from the candidate concerned. The petitioner, incidentally, on 30.01.2006, had submitted reminder before the Controller of Examination, Assam University reiterating his request for re-evaluation of his answer scripts in the aforementioned subjects. From the endorsement appearing on the body of the said application, it is apparent that the documents, in original, as sought for, by the letter dated 08.12.2005, were submitted by the petitioner with the Principal of the College, who in acknowledgement thereof, put his endorsement and the seal of the College of 25.03.2006. The petitioner, thereafter, on 22.05.2006 and 15.09.2006, requested the Controller of Examination, Assam University respectively and the Vice Chancellor, Gauhati University to expedite the process of re-evaluation of his answer scripts and declaration of the results. In his representation dated 15.09.2006, he admitted to have submitted the original documents as sought for, to the Principal of the College. The impugned notification dated 14.11.2006, clearly records a finding that the petitioner had adopted unfair means in the "re-evaluation of TDC Examination, 2005" and that the Committee, after thorough examination of the case, has decided that he must be awarded punishment as per Clause 8 (iv) of the Ordinance No. 4 and that his entire TDC Examination for the year 2005, be cancelled and further he be debarred from appearing in any University Examination for the year 2006, 2007 and 2008. This notification, issued by the Controller of University, amongst others, mentioned that the decision has the approval of the Vice Chancellor. Noticeably, by the said notification, different punishments have also been meted out to the other candidates enlisted for having adopted unfair means. 10. The pleaded averments do not demonstrate that any prior opportunity of hearing by the Committee had been extended to the petitioner before the penalty abovementioned was imposed on him. It is to the contrary, decipherable from the rival arguments that he was not permitted any such scope to represent in particular against the unfair means allegedly adopted by him in the examination, as detected by the Committee. Mr. Choudhury, has urged that having regard to the scheme of Clause 7 of the Ordinance, a predecisional hearing is not contemplated and the candidate, if aggrieved by the action taken by the Committee, may represent before the Vice Chancellor of the University against the same. Mr. Choudhury, has urged that having regard to the scheme of Clause 7 of the Ordinance, a predecisional hearing is not contemplated and the candidate, if aggrieved by the action taken by the Committee, may represent before the Vice Chancellor of the University against the same. Clause 4 of the Ordinance, enumerates the unfair means conceptualized by the University and Clause (j) relevant for the adjudication is quoted hereinabove: "(j) Smuggling into the examination hall an answer book or a continuation sheet or taking out or arranging to send an answer book or continuation sheet or replacing or attempting to get replaced the answer book or continuation sheet, during or after the examination with or without the held or connivance of any person connected with the examination, or through any other agency, whatsoever." Clause 5 of sub-clause (b) of the Ordinance, empowers the Executive Council of the University to declare by resolution any other act or omission or commission to be unfair means in respect of any or other examinations. The Executive Council, on satisfaction that there has been copying or use of unfair means, in mass scale at a particular centre(s), may cancel the examination of the candidates concerned and order reexamination, or disqualification of the candidates from appearing at such University Examination for a period not exceeding three years. However, the decision to disqualify, is to be taken on the report/recommendations of the Examination Discipline Committee and if the Executive Council suo moto decides to do so, it has to offer a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the affected candidates. Under Clause 6(a), the Superintendent of the Examination Centre, in each case, where use of unfair means is suspected or discovered, is required to report the same without delay to the Controller of Examination with full details along with the statement of the candidate, if any on the form supplied by the Controller of Examination. The said clause prohibits exertion offeree on the candidate for eliciting a statement from him and in case of his refusal, the same has to be recorded by the Superintendent and attested by two other members of the supervisory staff, if on duty at the time of occurrence. The said clause prohibits exertion offeree on the candidate for eliciting a statement from him and in case of his refusal, the same has to be recorded by the Superintendent and attested by two other members of the supervisory staff, if on duty at the time of occurrence. The provision also permits the candidate to answer the remaining part of the question paper in a separate answer book and provides that his right to appear in the rest of the examinations, would not be affected. 11. Clause 6 (d) requires that all cases of use of unfair means specified in Clauses d, e. 1, n, o & q of paragraph 4, shall be reported immediately to the Controller of Examinations by the persons named therein with all relevant materials. Clause 7, in particular, mandates that all cases of alleged use of unfair means shall be referred to a Committee called the Examination Discipline Committee to be appointed by the Vice Chancellor. Besides prescribing the composition of the Committee, the said clause stipulates that the decision taken by the majority of the members thereof, would be final and in case the opinion is equally divided, the case shall be referred to the Vice Chancellor, whose decision would be final. Clause 7 (g) allows the candidates to bring to the notice of the Vice Chancellor in writing within seven days on the receipt of the decision of the Committee, any fact or material which may not have been considered by it and if the Vice Chancellor is satisfied that the representation has substance, he may refer the case back to the Committee for reconsideration, whereafter, it would reconsider the case and its unanimous decision would be final. In case of difference of opinion, however, the matter would be referred by the Vice Chancellor to the Executive Council, whose decision would be final. The recommendations that can be made by the Committee as penalties against the candidate, being found to have used unfair means, have been set out in Clause 8. The scheme of the Ordinance as outlined by Clauses 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8, designed as a whole, proclaims a perceptible essentiality of a reasonable opportunity to a candidate alleged to have indulged in any one or more of the unfair means contemplated thereby, before deciding on the action to be taken against on her/him. The scheme of the Ordinance as outlined by Clauses 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8, designed as a whole, proclaims a perceptible essentiality of a reasonable opportunity to a candidate alleged to have indulged in any one or more of the unfair means contemplated thereby, before deciding on the action to be taken against on her/him. Though some preparatory steps in the eventualities envisioned in Clauses 5 & 6, are to be obligatorily taken in cases of detected unfair means adopted by a candidate, Clause 7, is candid in the ordainment that all such cases have to be imperatively referred to a Committee on the recommendations of which, the penalties catalogued in Clause 8 can permissibly be imposed on the erring candidate. Whereas, the Executive Council, under Clause 5, in case of copying or use of unfair means in mass scale at a particular centre, may take action after extending candidates a reasonable opportunity of hearing, the Superintendent of any examination centre, is required to report about any unfair means to the Controller of Examinations together with full details of evidence in support thereof and the statement of the candidate concerned, if any. Under 6 (d), all cases of unfair means specified in Clauses d, e, 1, n, o & q of paragraph 4, referred to therein, are to be reported to the Controller of Examinations with all relevant materials. If a candidate alleged to have adopted some unfair means in the course of examination, is required to be afforded an opportunity to make a statement, it does not stand to reason to deduce that no opportunity whatsoever need be accorded to a candidate accused of having indulged in unfair means, detected after the examination was conducted and that on an ex-parte scrutiny of his answer scripts, he can be penalized under the Ordinance. While the dominion and the autonomy of an academic institution in taking penal measures to enforce institutional discipline as well as to zealously guard the transparency in the examination system, admits of no reservation, the process involved and the decision taken has to be essentially informed with a basic tenets of fairness in action to stand judicial scrutiny. While the dominion and the autonomy of an academic institution in taking penal measures to enforce institutional discipline as well as to zealously guard the transparency in the examination system, admits of no reservation, the process involved and the decision taken has to be essentially informed with a basic tenets of fairness in action to stand judicial scrutiny. The plea of the University against predecisional hearing by the Committee, is too myopic and pedantic out rightly incongruous with the scheme of the Ordinance and the intrinsic precept of justness and equitableness, an indispensable determinant of a valid administrative action of a statutory authority as the University is. 12. The Apex Court in Basudeo Tiwary Vs. Sido Kanhu University & Ors., (1998) 8 SCC194, while reiterating non-arbitrariness to be an essential facet of Article 14, ruled that in order to impose procedural safeguards, the requirement of natural justice in many situations would have to be read into the statute when it is silent on that aspect. 13. The Apex Court in H. L. Trehan & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., (1989) 1 SCC 765, the Apex Court held the view that post-decisional opportunity of hearing does not subserve the rules of natural justice, as once a decision is taken, there is a tendency to uphold it and a representation may not yield any fruitful purpose. It observed that the authority embarking upon a post-decisional hearing naturally proceeds with a closed mind and there is hardly any chance of getting a proper consideration of the representation at such a post-decisional opportunity. The arguments advanced on behalf of the University, founded on Clause 7 (g) of the Ordinance, to neutralize the plea of want of fairness, thus cannot be sustained. The materials on record, do not demonstratively testify that the contents of the letter dated 08.12.2005 (Annexure-I to the affidavit of the 'University'), had been divulged to the petitioner or that he at any point of time was aware of the allegation of unfair means against him. Admittedly, no opportunity of hearing was granted to him to represent against the said indictment. The discrepancies noticed by the Committee in the petitioner's answer scripts, are as hereunder:- "1. The inner pages of the main answer scripts were found replaced. The perforation of letters 'AUS' on the cover page do not match with the perforation cf letters 'AUS' on the inner pages. The discrepancies noticed by the Committee in the petitioner's answer scripts, are as hereunder:- "1. The inner pages of the main answer scripts were found replaced. The perforation of letters 'AUS' on the cover page do not match with the perforation cf letters 'AUS' on the inner pages. The original stapling was also manipulated. 2. The loose sheets used were of TDC examination, 2004 where as the loose sheets used by the rests of the examinees of said papers are of TDC examinations, 2005. 3. The confidential centre code seal affixed on main answer scripts do not match with the centre code seal affixed on the loose sheets. 4. It appears that the signature of the Invigilators on main answer scripts do not match with the signature of Invigilator on the loose sheets." 14. Having regard to the seriousness of the discrepancies noticed and the likely adverse consequences to visit the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, he ought to have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to explain his defence in the matter. As the penalty, on the face of the records, is based on the findings of the Committee as extracted hereinabove, having regard to the scheme of the Ordinance and determination of this Court on the peremptory requirement of a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the impugned notification, vis-a-vis him, cannot be sustained. The decision to impose the penalty, as contained therein, is therefore, set aside. The matter stands remitted to the Committee for a decision afresh on the basis of the materials available bearing on the charge against the petitioner after according him a reasonable opportunity of hearing. As the petitioner awaits his results in the TDC Examination, 2005, the Committee would expedite the process and complete the same within a period of one (1) month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Needless to say, that the petitioner would co-operate with the process, so as to enable the respondent authorities to meet the deadline fixed by this Court. Depending on the outcome of the probe, necessary decision would be taken with regard to the petitioner's results in the aforementioned examination. If the allegation of adoption of unfair means by the petitioner as made, stands proved, it would be open for the University under the Ordinance to impose any penalty as it may deem fit and proper. Depending on the outcome of the probe, necessary decision would be taken with regard to the petitioner's results in the aforementioned examination. If the allegation of adoption of unfair means by the petitioner as made, stands proved, it would be open for the University under the Ordinance to impose any penalty as it may deem fit and proper. With the observations and directions made hereinabove, the W.P. (C) No. 345/2007, is thus allowed. W.P. (C) No. 5558/2006, stands disposed accordingly. No costs. subsequent post is a fresh appointment and not on promotion. The instructions as appended in FR 22 clearly disclose that the scope and object of the Rule is not for the purpose as the petitioner has sought to apply. 14. The pleaded facts would clearly demonstrate that the case of the petitioner is not a case of transfer from one cadre to another cadre wherein such a pay protection under FR 22 can be claimed which is appears to be the sole purpose of FR 22. Both the posts and cadres in which the petitioner are appointed are distinct, separate and are of different cadres and praying for appointment in the posts the petitioner made separate applications and she was subjected to appear in separate recruitment process. However, the State Government in its own wisdom being a welfare State and a model employer has considered the past services of the petitioner for the purpose of pensionary benefit only. By taking aid of such gracious attitude, the petitioner is not entitled to claim as a matter of right to get her pay protected as sought for. The respondent authorities have not committed any error in the decision making process, justifying interference of the action taken in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. 15. hi view of the above, I do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.