JUDGMENT T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. Senthilnathan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Ramasamy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and perused the material available on record including the counter affidavit filed by the respondent and the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is an institution offering B. Pharm. course with the approved intake of 50 students and they have secured approval from the competent authorities. The petitioner/Institution is affiliated to the respondents/University. The order impugned in this writ petition dated 26.06.2014 has been passed by the 1st respondent:- (a) Cancelling the entire B. Pharmacy Third Year February 2014 exam sessions and debarring 3 candidates who were present on 20.02.2014 for three subsequent sessions. (b) The Chief Superintendent and the Invigilator shall be debarred from being an Examiner for a period of two years. (c) The Institute/College shall be debarred from being an examination Centre for the next four sessions, [i.e., two years]. 3. The petitioner would state that on each and every occasion, the petitioner had to approach this Court for necessary relief to conduct the course offered by them. According to them, the examinations have been conducted in accordance with law without deviation from the Regulations or Procedures prescribed by the respondents/University. The petitioner would further state that without conducting any enquiry and without affording reasonable opportunity, the petitioner/Institution had been debarred from being an examination centre for a period of 2 years and the Chief Superintendent and the Invigilator have also been debarred. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents/University elaborately setting out as to what has occurred on the date when the Vigilance Squad of the University inspected the petitioner/Institution on 20.02.2014. The allegation is that when the Convenor and the Member of the Vigilance Squad entered the examination Hall, two unauthorised persons were present in the Hall and they disappeared from the Hall on seeing them. Further allegation is that the Mobile Phone Jammer was not functioning and the CCTV was switched of. It appears that based on this, the University addressed a letter to the petitioner/Institution on 19.03.2014 to send the CD of the CCTV recording to the University on or before 21.03.2014, failing which, it would be construed that the CCTV coverage has not been functioning in the petitioner/Institution. It appears that based on this, the University addressed a letter to the petitioner/Institution on 19.03.2014 to send the CD of the CCTV recording to the University on or before 21.03.2014, failing which, it would be construed that the CCTV coverage has not been functioning in the petitioner/Institution. The petitioner/Institution enclosed 9 CDs recorded from the CCTV DVR and the University would state that the recording is not proper and they directed the Chief Superintendent and the Invigilator, who were appointed for the 3rd B. Pharm Degree course examination in the Subject of Pharmaology-I to atten the enquiry on 02.04.2014. 5. The Examination Disciplinary Committee members enquired the members of the Vigilance Squad and during the course of enquiry, it appears that they have reported that the Chief Superintendent was not available in the examination Hall and only 2 unauthorised persons were available. Further it is stated that the Examination Disciplinary Committee enquired both the Chief Superintendent and the Invigilator of the petitioner/Institution and the Chief Superintendent had denied the statement given by the Vigilance Squad and has given a different statement stating that he has sent the copy of the CD of CCTV recording to the University along with the answer bundle. Likewise, the Invigilator also is said to have given a different statement contrary to the statement said to have been recorded by the Vigilance Squad. Subsequently, on 22.03.2014, the petitioner/Institution has sent 9 copies of CDs recorded from CCTV and therefore, the University would state that the CDs did not accompany the answer bundle. Since the Mobile phone Jammer was not working, the petitioner/Institution has purposely altered and changed the time and date of the CD recorded from CCTV recordings. Therefore, the University has concluded that it is a case of mass copying. 6. Since the examination was arrears examination and only 3 candidates were present, the University took a decision to cancel the results and debar them. It is stated that as of now, the students have sat for the subsequent examinations and they have cleared the same. Therefore, this Court is not dealing with the issue regarding debarring of the students, more particularly, when the students are not aggrieved and they have not approached this Court challenging the same. 7. It is stated that as of now, the students have sat for the subsequent examinations and they have cleared the same. Therefore, this Court is not dealing with the issue regarding debarring of the students, more particularly, when the students are not aggrieved and they have not approached this Court challenging the same. 7. The only issue is with regard to the debarring of the Chief Superintendent and the Invigilator of the petitioner/Institution for a period of 2 years and debarring the petitioner/ Institution from being an examination centre for a period of 2 years. 8. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner/Institution denying and disputing the averments made in the counter affidavit, more particularly, paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 28 of the Counter. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the E-mail sent to the 1st respondent/Controller of Examination on21.03.2014, stating that they have already sent the CD recorded copy from CCTV camera daily on the same exam date along with answer paper bundle. It is further stated that they have received a letter dated 21.03.2014 by 3.00 p.m. and the mail had been received from the University is in “odt” format which is not opened and taking backup from the CCTV DVR is taking too much time because the files are too big. Therefore, CCTV recorded copy on 24.03.2014 has been forwarded by E-mail. 9. From the averments it is seen that the Examination Disciplinary Committee took a decision to debar 3 candidates and cancel their results. Since there is no challenge of the said cancellation of results and debarring by the students, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said decision. Therefore, the decision taken by the University in the impugned order insofar as it relates to Clause (1) in the impugned order, deciding to cancel the entire B. Pharmacy Third Year February 2014 exam sessions and debarring 3 candidates who were present on 20.02.2014 for three subsequent sessions, is upheld. 10. Therefore, the decision taken by the University in the impugned order insofar as it relates to Clause (1) in the impugned order, deciding to cancel the entire B. Pharmacy Third Year February 2014 exam sessions and debarring 3 candidates who were present on 20.02.2014 for three subsequent sessions, is upheld. 10. Insofar as the other two decisions, viz., to debar the Chief Superintendent and the Invigilator and to debar the entire B. Pharmacy Third Year February 2014 exam sessions and debarring 3 candidates who were present on 20.02.2014 for three subsequent sessions from being an examination centre for a period of four sessions, it is seen that the entire B. Pharmacy Third Year February 2014 exam sessions and debarring 3 candidates who were present on 20.02.2014 for three subsequent sessions has not been afforeded an opportunity to contest the matter. It may be true that an enquiry was conducted by the Examination Disciplinary Committee in which the Chief Superintendent and the Invigilator are said to have appeared and in the counter it is stated that both the staff have given a different statement contrary to the statement said to have been given to the Vigilance Squad. Therefore, an enquiry is required to be conducted by affording an opportunity, not only to the Chief Superintendent and the Invigilator, but also to the entire B. Pharmacy Third Year February 2014 exam sessions and debarring 3 candidates who were present on 20.02.2014 for three subsequent session, since the respondents/ University has taken a decision to debar the institution and undoubtedly, the said order will cause a stigma on the entire B. Pharmacy Third Year February 2014 exam sessions and debarring 3 candidates who were present on 20.02.2014 for three subsequent session. Therefore, the principles of natural justice are required to be followed and they are entitled to be heard. 11. Accordingly, the clauses (2) and (3) of the impugned order, insofar as debarring the Chief Superintendent and the Invigilator from being an Examiner for a period of two years and debarring the Institute/College from being an examination Centre for the next four sessions, [i.e., two years], are set aside. 12. 11. Accordingly, the clauses (2) and (3) of the impugned order, insofar as debarring the Chief Superintendent and the Invigilator from being an Examiner for a period of two years and debarring the Institute/College from being an examination Centre for the next four sessions, [i.e., two years], are set aside. 12. The respondent/University is directed to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner/ Institution based on the findings of the Examination Disciplinary Committee and the petitioner/Institution is directed to reply to the Show Cause Notice and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner/Institution, the respondent/University is directed to pass a speaking order on merits and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.