JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. The petitioners, who are pursuing the studies of MBBS course, have filed these writ petitions assailing the legality of the orders dated 18.9.14 issued by the Controller of Examination, Rajasthan University of Health Sciences ('University'), whereby in exercise of the power conferred under Ordinance 152 (4) of the University, they have been declared disqualified for appearing in the examination for a period of two years including the examination wherein they had appeared. 2. The petitioners appeared in MBBS First Year/ Second Year/ Third Year Examinations Main/Remanded, conducted by the University in the month of January, 2014. The result of the examinations was declared on 29.4.14 on official website of the University. The petitioners were declared fail in different subjects. Thereafter, the petitioners received the certified copies of the mark sheets, wherein they were shown to have passed in the examinations. Accordingly, on the strength of the certified mark sheets, they were granted admission in the next higher classes by the University/Colleges. However, later it was detected by the University that the mark sheets issued to them prepared by the computer firm showed them pass whereas, they had failed in the respective examination/papers. In these circumstances, pursuant to the decision taken by the Examination Committee in its meeting held on 24.5.14, vide notice dated 9.8.14, the petitioners were directed to appear before the Examination Committee in person along with the mark sheets issued for personal hearing. Thereafter, vide order dated 18.9.14 issued by the Controller of Examination, in exercise of the power conferred under Ordinance 152(4), the petitioners were declared disqualified for a period of two years including the examination they had appeared. Hence, this petition. 3. By interim orders passed by this court in various writ petitions, the petitioners were permitted to attend the classes regarding which they had filled up forms and had deposited the fees on the strength of the certified mark sheets issued to them. They were also permitted to fill up the examination form, however, it was specifically ordered that they shall not be permitted to appear in the examination without permission of the court. 4. They were also permitted to fill up the examination form, however, it was specifically ordered that they shall not be permitted to appear in the examination without permission of the court. 4. On 21.11.14, while admitting the writ petitions, the interim order granted by this court earlier as aforesaid, was modified and it was ordered that the effect and operation of order dated 18.9.14 passed by the University in case of all the petitioners seeking to impose punishment under Ordinance 152(4) shall remain stayed during the pendency of the writ petitions. It was further ordered that admissions of the petitioners to the respective classes, which have been continued under the orders passed by this court, shall be kept in abeyance and shall be revived only if they clear their respective remanded/regular exams./papers, based on corrected mark sheets produced by the counsel for the University in reply to the writ petitions and/or to be supplied by the learned counsel for the University to learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners. That apart, it was ordered that the petitioners shall be permitted to appear in the respective exams, on the basis of the corrected mark-sheets produced by the University along with its replies, as per the University calender. The order passed as aforesaid was made subject to the final outcome of the writ petitions. Pursuant to the order passed as aforesaid, the petitioners have appeared in respective examinations/papers and their results are produced before this court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners had taken admission in the next higher class on the strength of the certified mark sheets issued by the University on 5.5.14. Learned counsel submitted that on the basis of the admission granted, the petitioners have pursued their studies of the next higher classes and therefore, they cannot be penalised for no fault on their part. It is submitted that before passing the order impugned, the petitioners were not afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing. It is submitted that after issuing the notice, straight away without inquiring into the allegations levelled and recording the definite finding regarding the petitioners involvement in fabricating/tempering with the mark sheets, the punishment has been inflicted upon them under Ordinance 152(4). It is submitted that before passing the order impugned, the petitioners were not afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing. It is submitted that after issuing the notice, straight away without inquiring into the allegations levelled and recording the definite finding regarding the petitioners involvement in fabricating/tempering with the mark sheets, the punishment has been inflicted upon them under Ordinance 152(4). Learned counsel submitted that no evidence whatsoever was led to substantiate the allegations levelled against the petitioners and therefore, the orders impugned passed declaring the petitioners disqualified for a period of two years including the present examination, in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, are not sustainable in the eyes of law. 6. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that there exists a dispute regarding the correctness of two mark sheets issued; one being internet mark sheet and another the certified mark sheet issued by the University. It is submitted that which mark sheet is false/forged, is a matter of inquiry to be conducted by the appropriate authority and the disputed question involved cannot be gone into by this court in writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that it cannot be disputed that as per the record, the petitioners are declared fail and admittedly, they being the beneficiaries of tempered mark sheets issued, the conclusion drawn by the Examination Committee regarding the guilt of the petitioners, cannot be faulted with. Learned counsel submitted that the orders impugned passed pursuant to the decision of the Examination Committee in conformity with Ordinance 152(4) of the University, does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 8. Indisputably, as per the result declared on the website of the University, the petitioners were declared fail in their respective remanded/regular exams/papers. It is a matter of record that the certified mark sheets prepared by the computer firm issued by the University to the petitioners, were not in conformity with the results of the petitioners available with the University. But then, the fact that the petitioners are beneficiaries of the tempered mark sheets, by itself, does not lead to the conclusion that the petitioners were involved in fabricated/tempering with the mark sheets. But then, the fact that the petitioners are beneficiaries of the tempered mark sheets, by itself, does not lead to the conclusion that the petitioners were involved in fabricated/tempering with the mark sheets. In any case, before imposing the punishment under the provisions of Ordinance 152 (4), the University was under an obligation to extend fair and reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to defend the allegations levelled against them. It is not in dispute that the petitioners herein had pleaded lack of knowledge regarding the irregularities committed as alleged and thus, acting fairly, it was incumbent upon the University to prove the allegation regarding the petitioners involvement in fabricating/tampering with the mark sheets on the basis of cogent evidence and in absence thereof, they could not have been held guilty by merely observing that the Examination Committee is not agreeable to the stand taken by the petitioners. 9. A bare perusal of the orders impugned dated 18.9.14 reveals that no categoric finding whatsoever has been recorded by the Examination Committee regarding involvement of the petitioners in issuance of incorrect/fabricated mark sheets. It is true that the adequacy or sufficiency of the reasons recorded by the adjudicating authority may not be gone into by this court but at least, the precise reasons for holding the petitioners guilty and imposing the punishment must have been recorded by the authority concerned. 10. In view of the discussion above, in the considered opinion of this court, the non speaking orders passed by the University holding the petitioners guilty of the allegations levelled and imposing the punishment as aforesaid, in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, are not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserve to be quashed. 11. Coming to the reliefs claimed by the petitioners, it is not disputed before this court that the petitioners have failed in the remanded/regular exams/papers in which they have been shown as pass, which is evident from the corrected mark sheets, now produced before this court by the University and therefore, the question of permitting the petitioners to take up the examination of next higher class, wherein they were admitted on the strength of incorrect mark sheets, does not arise unless and until they clear their respective remanded/regular exams/papers wherein they have failed. 12. 12. It is informed that pursuant to the interim order dated 21.11.14 passed by this court, the petitioners were permitted to appear in respective exams/papers on the basis of the corrected mark sheets. The results of the examinations are produced before this court today wherein, which show that some of the petitioners have passed the examinations/papers wherein they had appeared and therefore, the petitioners who have cleared the examination/papers, deserve to be permitted by the University to take the examination of next higher classes, if they are found otherwise eligible. But then, the candidates, who are declared fail, are not entitled to be continued in the next higher class and appear in the examination unless they clear the exams/papers as per the norms of examination laid down by the University. 13. In view of the discussion above, the writ petitions are allowed. The orders impugned dated 18.9.14 declaring the petitioners disqualified for a period of two years including the present examination, are quashed. The University shall be at liberty to conduct the inquiry afresh and pass the appropriate order, after giving a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The University shall declare the result of the petitioners of their respective exams/papers, wherein they were permitted to appear pursuant to the interim order dated 22.11.14 passed by this court, forthwith. The petitioners who are declared pass in their regular exams/remanded papers, shall be permitted to take up the studies/examination of the next higher class, if they are found otherwise eligible. However, the petitioners who are declared fail in their respective exams/remanded papers, shall be permitted to take up the examination in accordance with the norms laid down by the University. That apart, the petitioners shall not be denied the reevaluation of the answer books, if applied for and permissible under the rules governing the examinations. The results of the petitioners produced by the University may be returned to the counsel for the University in sealed cover. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.