JUDGMENT Mr. Ajai Lamba, J. (Oral): - This petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 22.11.2010 (Annexure P-1) and Notification dated 23.11.2010 (Annexure P- 2), issued by the respondent-University; namely, Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala. The petition further prays for quashing of decision taken by the Executive Council of the respondent-University on 17.12.2010 (Annexure P-4), vide which proceedings of Unfair Means Committee of the respondent- University have been confirmed. 2. The petitioner claims to have a good academic record in the past, having secured 79.4% marks in 10th class, 84.6% marks in 10+2 examination, 69% marks in Ist Semester of B.A., LL.B. (Honours) 5 Years’ Course and 67% marks in 2nd Semester of the same Course. 3. The petitioner was successful in All India Common Law Admission Test and, thereafter, got admission in the respondent-University. The petitioner took Ist Semester examination of B.A., LL.B. (Honours) 5 Years’ Course and, after passing the same, was promoted to the 2nd Semester. The petitioner, while appearing in 2nd Semester examination of English subject, was inadvertently in possession of two pieces of paper, which were taken away by the Examiner. A case of unfair means was made against the petitioner on 9.6.2010. In all other papers of 2nd Semester, the petitioner secured 68% marks (approximately), except English paper, in which the petitioner got a reappear. 4. As per the claim of the petitioner, in September, 2010, the petitioner took the reappear examination in English subject, and secured 64% marks. The petitioner got admission in 3rd Semester and attended all the classes and also took the examination for 3rd Semester. All this time, no decision was taken by the Unfair Means Committee. Be that as it may, the Committee met on 22.11.2010, as is disclosed from report (Annexure P-1). 5. As per report (Annexure P-1), the petitioner admitted that two slips were recovered from him. Under the circumstances, the Committee unanimously took a view that the slips had been intentionally carried to the Examination Hall and the case of the petitioner falls in the unfair means cases of 2nd degree. It has been unanimously decided vide the said document (Annexure P-1) that the entire result of 2nd Semester of the petitioner held in June, 2010, be cancelled. 6. In tune with the report (Annexure P-1), Notification (Annexure P-2) has been issued. It has been unanimously decided vide the said document (Annexure P-1) that the entire result of 2nd Semester of the petitioner held in June, 2010, be cancelled. 6. In tune with the report (Annexure P-1), Notification (Annexure P-2) has been issued. The petitioner petitioned to the Executive Council to reconsider decisions (Annexures P-1 and P- 2), vide Annexure P-3. Annexure P-4 is the order passed by the Executive Council on 17.12.2010. The decision taken by the Unfair Means Committee has been confirmed. The Executive Council further did not allow relaxation in promotion rules to the petitioner. Order (Annexure P-4) was conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated 13.1.2011 (Annexure P-5). 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents did not take decision with the alacrity that was required, particularly considering that the petitioner is studying in a Semester System. In the meantime, the petitioner has passed the next Semester also. At this stage, it would be highly unfair to ask the petitioner to go back in time and take all the examinations again. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that the decisions have been taken by authorities having competent jurisdiction and do not call for any interference, particularly when physical evidence has been found on the person of the petitioner, indicating employment of unfair means. It has also been argued that the action taken by the respondents is in conformity with statutory provisions. 9. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the parties. 10. It is not in dispute that an unfair means case was made against the petitioner on 9.6.2010, when he was taking examination of 2nd Semester of English subject. It is further not in dispute that the petitioner was allowed to take admission in 3rd Semester in August, 2010. The petitioner took the examination of 3rd Semester in November/December, 2010. The Unfair Means Committee took decision (Annexure P-1) on 22.11.2010 and the Notification (Annexure P-2) was issued on 23.11.2010. The petitioner petitioned to the Executive Council in November, 2010 itself. The decision of the Executive Council was conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated 13.1.2011 (Annexure P-5). 11. In my considered opinion, the decision should have been taken by the Unfair Means Committee in close proximity of time of the incident itself, so that the petitioner could have petitioned to the Executive Council. The decision of the Executive Council was conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated 13.1.2011 (Annexure P-5). 11. In my considered opinion, the decision should have been taken by the Unfair Means Committee in close proximity of time of the incident itself, so that the petitioner could have petitioned to the Executive Council. That having not been done, serious prejudice has been caused to the rights of the petitioner. The Executive Council also took undue long time in conveying the order to the petitioner in January, 2011. 12. On making of an unfair means case, automatic action of cancellation of result does not follow. A procedure has been provided, to be followed by the authorities, under which Unfair Means Committee is required to meet, consider the facts and circumstances in the context of allegations against a student, give an opportunity of hearing and then take a decision. 13. In case of semester system, the examinations are held approximately every six months. 14. By efflux of time consumed by the authorities, the petitioner was allowed to continue his studies, even in next semester, i.e. 3rd semester, for which he took examination and claims to have passed. The proceedings that were to decide the future of the petitioner were, however, not finalised. At this juncture, the petitioner is being asked to go back in time by virtue of the impugned orders under which entire result of 2nd semester examination held in June, 2010, is sought to be cancelled. 15. The petitioner, at this point in time, ordinarily is to pursue studies in 4th semester. In case, the petitioner is asked to go back to the stage of June, 2010, manifest injustice would be caused. 16. Without doubt, the petitioner is to be penalised for his indulgence in the offending act, however, in proportion to his misconduct. The respondents cannot take their own time in finalising the proceedings, dehors the rights of a student. The equities are required to be balanced. The issue has to be viewed in context of the fact that it is a semester system and, therefore, action should have been in close proximity of time of the incident i.e. 9.6.2010. The impugned order (Annexure P-1), however, has been conveyed to the petitioner in November, 2010. The decision rendered by the Executive Council was conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated 13.1.2011. 17. The impugned order (Annexure P-1), however, has been conveyed to the petitioner in November, 2010. The decision rendered by the Executive Council was conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated 13.1.2011. 17. The petitioner reappeared in English paper and passed in Ist division in September, 2010. 18. I have also taken note of the fact that in none of the orders, it has been recorded that the petitioner was found utilising/using the paper slips carried in the Examination Hall. All that has been alleged is that the petitioner had two slips of paper in his pocket. Since the petitioner was proceeded against in unfair means case in the context of his 2nd Semester English paper, I am of the considered opinion that manifest injustice would be caused if the entire result of 2nd Semester of the petitioner is cancelled at this stage when he is in 4th semester. If the impugned action was to be taken, it should have been taken within the currency of the next semester, before the petitioner had appeared in the 3rd semester. 19. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as noticed above, the petition is allowed to the extent that the result of the petitioner for 2nd Semester English subject examination would be maintained as cancelled. The result of the other papers for 2nd Semester, however, shall be maintained. The result of the petitioner in reappear examination of English, held on 3.9.2010, shall also be taken into account. 20. Copy of the order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Special Secretary. -----------0.K.B.0------------