JUDGMENT : MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 01.02.2019, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ-petitioner has been dismissed. The appellant/writ-petitioner in the writ petition has challenged the communication dated 29.09.2018 sent to him by the Controller of Examination and the letter dated 29.09.2018 issued by the office of the Dean whereby the first MBBS (Main) examination of the appellant/writ-petitioner has been cancelled and she has been further debarred for one subsequent examination, if held once a year or two subsequent examinations, if held twice a year, on the allegation of using unfair-means. 2. Factual matrix of the case is that the appellant/writ-petitioner appeared in the First MBBS (Main) examination held on 16.07.2018 at 10:00 AM to 01:00 PM at the Government College, Jhalawar, in the subject Biochemistry Paper-I. The Invigilator found a photostat copy of the paper chit in her pencil box at 12:45 PM on that date and reported the matter to the Center Superintendent, who, in turn, sent the report to the respondent Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (for short, ‘respondent-RUHS’) on 16.07.2018. The subject expert submitted his report on 30.07.2018, in which he found that the caught material was used by her while answering question no. 7(b). The Unfair-means Inquiry Committee provided an opportunity to the appellant-writ-petitioner on 02.08.2018 and recommenced punishment of cancellation of the given examination and further debarment from examination for one year. The Controller of the Examination of the respondent-RUHS vide letter dated 29.09.2018 communicated the recommendation of the Unfair-means Inquiry Committee to the Principal of the College, wherein it was mentioned that such recommendation was subject to approval by the Board of Management. The Board of Management in its 121st Meeting held on 01.10.2018 approved the recommendation of the Unfair-means Inquiry Committee. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment has upheld the decision of the respondent-RUHS. 3. Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/writ-petitioner, has submitted that when the appellant/writ-petitioner appeared in the aforesaid Board on 16.07.2018, the Invigilator came to her table and asked about the paper chit, which was thrown by someone from behind. The Invigilator seized the answer-sheet of the appellant/writ-petitioner along-with the paper chit. The Invigilator himself when he reported the matter to the respondent-RUHS that at the time the paper chit was seized by him, the appellant/writ-petitioner was not found copying. The Invigilator seized the answer-sheet of the appellant/writ-petitioner along-with the paper chit. The Invigilator himself when he reported the matter to the respondent-RUHS that at the time the paper chit was seized by him, the appellant/writ-petitioner was not found copying. The appellant/writ-petitioner made a representation to the Controller of Examination on 21.07.2018 stating the correct factual position, in which she asserted that the paper chit did not belong to her and that she did not use the same. The Controller of Examination by communication dated 27.07.2018 directed the Principal of the College to inform the appellant/writ-petitioner and other students to appear before the Unfair-means Inquiry Committee on 02.08.2018. The Dean of the Jhalawar Medical College on 28.07.2018 informed the appellant/writ-petitioner about the aforesaid date of hearing, but the decision of debarring the appellant/writ-petitioner had already been taken by such Committee even prior to obtaining the report from the subject expert. The appellant/writ-petitioner was kept completely in dark about the report of the subject expert. She was thus prevented from explaining the circumstances to make her comments thereupon. The Unfair-means Inquiry Committee thus did not follow the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the copy of the report was not supplied to her. The appellant/writ-petitioner was merely required by the Unfair-means Inquiry Committee to solve one question, which she correctly answered. 4. Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, argued that the Unfair-means Inquiry Committee even though it was not competent on its own to take a decision, yet it decided to cancel the present examination of the appellant/writ-petitioner and debar her from one subsequent examination, if held once a year or two subsequent examinations if held twice a year, on the allegation of using unfair-means. The Board of Management of the respondent-RUHS in its 121st Meeting held on 01.10.2018 at point no. 5 resolved to approve the decision taken by the Unfair-means Inquiry Committee from 08.12.2017 onwards, which was ex post facto approval of a decision already taken. However, at item no. 6, it was resolved by the Board of Management of the respondent-RUHS that future recommendations of the Unfair-means Inquiry Committee be implemented after approval by the Competent Authority and ex-post facto approval be taken from the Board of Management. 5. Mr. However, at item no. 6, it was resolved by the Board of Management of the respondent-RUHS that future recommendations of the Unfair-means Inquiry Committee be implemented after approval by the Competent Authority and ex-post facto approval be taken from the Board of Management. 5. Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that as per the Ordinance 152 of the University Ordinance, a candidate found guilty of unfair-means or disorderly conduct at or in connection with the examination can be punished only at the discretion of the Syndicate. The meeting of the Unfair-means Inquiry Committee could not be convened without obtaining opinion of the subject expert as provided by Ordinance 152 to determine whether or not the same was used. The Unfair-means Inquiry Committee has no authority to take the decision and it can only enquire into the matter and send its recommendations to the Syndicate, which in the case of the respondent-RUHS is Board of Management. As per Ordinance 152(5)(xiii), the report of expert and recommendations of the Unfair-means Inquiry Committee have to be placed before the Syndicate/Board of Management, which is the final authority to take such action as it may think necessary in each case or before the Vice Chancellor, if authorized to do so on behalf of the Syndicate. In the present case, however, the decision of debarring the appellant/writ-petitioner was communicated to her on 29.09.2018 itself even before the matter was placed before the Board of Management on 01.10.2018, where it had given ex post facto approval. Learned Senior Counsel therefore submitted that the decision taken by the authority is without competence and the entire action of the respondent-RUHS, being wholly without authority, is liable to be quashed and set aside. 6. Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, further argued that the procedure provided by and under Ordinance 152, supra, has not been followed by the respondents. The respondents have not followed the procedure given in Ordinance 152 (5)(ii), according to which as soon as a candidate is suspected, found or reported to have resorted to unfair-means and the Invigilator/Superintendent or any member of the Flying Squad feels satisfied that unfair-means have been used, his answer-book shall be seized alongwith the material recovered and a fresh answer-book given to him to answer the questions of the question paper and the answer-books shall be marked as I and II respectively. The appellant/writ-petitioner was not given fresh answer-sheet for her examination. This prima facie establishes that she was not found using unfair-means material at the relevant time. The respondents therefore ought to have followed the procedure given in Ordinance 152. It is submitted that as the action stigmatizes the student and visits the students with penal consequences, the procedure prescribed under Ordinance 152 was required to be unscrupulously followed. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the law is well settled that when a thing is allowed to be done in a manner prescribed by the Statute, it is required to be done in the said manner alone or not at all. The action of the respondents therefore is liable to be quashed and set aside. 7. It is argued that the respondents acted in unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory manner as in the same examination other students, namely, Kanika Jain and Vikas Sepat, who were caught with handwritten material in their possession, they were subsequently punished with cancellation of the result of that paper only whereas the appellant/writ-petitioner has been punished with a very harsh punishment. The judgments of the Supreme Court in Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Hotel Management, Nutrition & Catering Technology, Chandigarh Vs. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan - (2009) 1 SCC 59 and Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Vs. K.S. Gandhi and Others - (1991) 2 SCC 716 , relied by the respondents are distinguishable. 8. Mr. M.A. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent-RUHS has emphatically denied the suggestion that the appellant/writ-petitioner had not used caught material. He argued that it may be true that the appellant/writ-petitioner when she was caught with material recovered from her pencil box at 12:45 PM, was not using the same but after seizure of the caught material, opinion of the subject expert was sought and as per his opinion, it was found used by the appellant/writ-petitioner while answering question no. 7(b). Learned counsel denied that the Unfair-means Inquiry Committee had communicated the decision to the concerned Medical College, Jhalawar, by letter dated 29.09.2018. It was merely a recommendation, which the Unfair-means Inquiry Committee had made to the Board of Management, which it forwarded to the Principal of the Medical College with specific endorsement that such recommendations were subject to approval of the Board of Management. It was merely a recommendation, which the Unfair-means Inquiry Committee had made to the Board of Management, which it forwarded to the Principal of the Medical College with specific endorsement that such recommendations were subject to approval of the Board of Management. The said letter dated 29.09.2018 was sent to facilitate the appellant/writ-petitioner to fill up the examination process so the appellant/writ-petitioner, if eventually exonerated by the Board of Management, may have chance to appear in the examination and may not have prejudiced to her. Subsequently, the Board of Management in its 121st meeting held on 01.10.2018 approved the recommendations of the Unfair-means Inquiry Committee. 9. Mr. M.A. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent-RUHS, fairly submitted that behaviour of the appellant/writ-petitioner during the examination remained satisfactory and therefore the Unfair-means Inquiry Committee had recommended minimum punishment to the appellant/writ-petitioner. Ordinance 152(4)(c) (i) provides that if the behaviour of the candidate on being caught is satisfactory who had used the caught material, the present examination shall be cancelled and he/she shall be further debarred for one subsequent examination, if the examination is held once a year or two subsequent examinations if the examination is held twice a year. It is therefore submitted that this penalty has been awarded to her. On the other hand if the behaviour of the candidate being caught is found unsatisfactory, then he is liable to be punished under Ordinance 152(4)(c)(ii) for cancellation of the present examination and he shall be further debarred from appearing at two subsequent examinations if the examination is held once a year or debarred from four subsequent examinations if the examination is held twice a year. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Hotel Management, supra, wherein it was held that minimum punishment provided under the Rules could not be further reduced by the High Court. 10. Mr. M.A. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent-RUHS, submitted that there was no question of supplying the second answer-book to the appellant/writ-petitioner because she had attempted all the answers and examination was to be held only upto 01:00 PM. The caught material was found in her possession at 12:45 PM and in the process the time of the examination was complete. Even otherwise, there is no case of the appellant/writ-petitioner that she demanded second answer-book and was not given. The caught material was found in her possession at 12:45 PM and in the process the time of the examination was complete. Even otherwise, there is no case of the appellant/writ-petitioner that she demanded second answer-book and was not given. The argument of discrimination is also emphatically refuted by the learned counsel for the respondent-RUHS. It is submitted that the candidates, namely, Kanika Jain and Vikas Sepat, the subject experts opined that caught material was not related with the question paper. Their report is placed on the record as Annexure R/1/6 and R/1/7 to the reply of the respondent-RUHS. It is therefore that they were let free with minor punishment. 11. Mr. M.A. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent-RUHS, has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Vs. K.S. Gandhi, supra, on the question of scope of interference by the High Court. 12. We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record. 13. The Supreme Court in Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Hotel Management, supra, has held that in case the penalty is awarded on account of use of unfair-means, the High Court should not ordinarily interfere with the functioning of the educational authorities unless there is clear violation of some statutory rule or legal principle. The Supreme Court was dealing with the case where the respondent was student of degree course was found with a slip in his possession while answering his answer script on “Front Office Management”. The slip was in the handwriting of the respondent and contained the material relevant to the examination. The Invigilation staff seized the slip and fresh answer sheet was given to the respondent. Subsequently, a case of malpractice was initiated against the respondent. He admitted his guilt and expressed his regrets and also offered a promise that he would not repeat it in future. The respondent, according to the Rules, was to be declared failed in all the examinations of the current academic session and was disqualified for the next academic session. He was however permitted to take readmission for the next academic session in the same class and he had to appear in the annual examination of that year. The Single Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition. He was however permitted to take readmission for the next academic session in the same class and he had to appear in the annual examination of that year. The Single Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition. The Single Bench inter alia held that punishment imposed on the respondent was disproportionate, particularly when the respondent had shown remorse and sought forgiveness. The Single Bench, during pendency of the writ petition, passed a detailed interim order permitting the respondent to appear in forthcoming Front Office Management examination of the year next to the academic year subject to the condition that this would not create any equities in his favour. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the judgment of the Single Bench. In those facts, the Supreme Court held as under:- “11. Coming to the interim order of the learned Single Judge dated 31.3.2006, it may be noted that in the very second sentence of the order the 10 learned Single Judge stated that the record did not bear out whether the chit had actually been used in the examination. As already noted above, this was a wholly irrelevant consideration. Once it is found that the chit/piece of paper contains material pertaining to the examination in question it amounts to malpractice, whether the same was used by the examinee or not. 12. The learned Single Judge in the interim order has then emphasized on the fact that the respondent had apologized and had 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. 13. The learned Single Judge in the interim order then states -”if we care to think back to our student days, one would invariably recollect preparation of such kind of slips for refreshing the mind immediately before an examination, with no further intent to use it as an unfair or illegitimate manner”. 14. Here again, we respectfully cannot approve of the above observation of the learned Single Judge. A judge is supposed to keep his personal view in the background and not inject them in the judgments. 14. Here again, we respectfully cannot approve of the above observation of the learned Single Judge. A judge is supposed to keep his personal view in the background and not inject them in the judgments. What was done in his student days was surely irrelevant for deciding the case or even passing an interim order. It is true that seeing a slip of paper before commencement of the examination is not a malpractice, but in the present case we are concerned with its use during the examination and not before the examination. Hence we fail to see how the above observation of the learned Single Judge could be justified. 15. The learned Single Judge has then directed the Institution to allow the respondent to reappear in the forthcoming ‘Front Office Examination’. In our opinion, this again was wholly illegal. As noted in Rule 9.2 (quoted above), even if a candidate has used unfair means only in one paper, he will be deemed to have failed in all the papers. In the present case, the respondent no doubt was found with a slip of paper in the ‘Front Office Examination’ which was only one of the papers. However, in view of Rule 9.2 he will have to reappear in the entire examination i.e. in all the papers, and not merely in the Front Office Examination.” 14. In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Vs. K.S. Gandhi and Others, supra, the appellant Board conducted the secondary examinations in the month of March 1990. When after the formalities of valuation by the examiners of the answer sheets in each subject, the random counter-check by the moderators and further recounting at the Board, moderators’ mark sheets were sent to Pune for feeding the computer to declare the results, it was found that moderators’ mark sheets relating to 283 examinees, which included 53 respondents, were tampered with, in many a case in more than 2 to 8 subjects, and in few cases in one subject. The Supreme Court held that strict rules of the Evidence Act, and the standard of proof envisaged therein do not apply to departmental proceedings or domestic tribunal. It was open to the authorities to receive and place on record all the necessary, relevant, cogent and acceptable material facts, though not proved strictly in conformity with the Evidence Act. The Supreme Court held that strict rules of the Evidence Act, and the standard of proof envisaged therein do not apply to departmental proceedings or domestic tribunal. It was open to the authorities to receive and place on record all the necessary, relevant, cogent and acceptable material facts, though not proved strictly in conformity with the Evidence Act. The material must be germane and relevant to the facts in issue. There must be evidence, direct or circumstantial, to deduce necessary inference in proof of the facts in issue. The standard of proof is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but the preponderance of probabilities tending to draw an inference that the fact must be more probable. It was held that if the conclusion is supported by evidence on record, no interference is called for even though court considers that another view is also possible. 15. We are not inclined to uphold the argument urged on behalf of the appellant/writ-petitioner that since second answer-book was not provided to her in accordance with the Ordinance 152 (5)(ii), it should be deduced from it that the Invigilator/Superintendent of the Examination Center was satisfied that unfair-means had not been adopted by the appellant/writ-petitioner. It may be true that the chit of the paper which was found in the possession of the appellant was not being used when it was caught by the Invigilator but considering that it was recovered from her possession at 12:45 PM and the examination had commenced at 10:00 AM and was to last at 01:00 PM, sufficient time had already elapsed and hardly any time was left. Moreover, all the questions had been attempted by the appellant/writ-petitioner. Whether or not it was used in the examination was proved from the report of the expert, who in their report not only found it proved which we have seen from the original answer-sheet of Biochemistry Paper-I, which was produced by Mr. M.A. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent University before us. Perusal of the answer-sheet indicates that the examiners compared the answer attempted by the appellant/writ-petitioner to question No. 7(b) with the chit of the paper found in possession of the appellant/writ-petitioner. This chit was photo copy of the text book on the subject of Biochemistry Paper VII of First MBBS Main Examination titled Vitamins Page No. 159 of the subject of Biochemistry. This chit was photo copy of the text book on the subject of Biochemistry Paper VII of First MBBS Main Examination titled Vitamins Page No. 159 of the subject of Biochemistry. The Examiner has encircled the answer given in three pages by red ink to indicate that comparison of the two substantiate the copy made by the appellant/writ-petitioner. In fact, an application was submitted by the appellant/writ-petitioner to the Unfair Means Committee, RUHS, Jaipur, which reads as under:- “On day of Examination of Biochemistry-1 on date 16.07.2018 one cheat of paper came to me from somewhere. I have no idea of whose cheat it was and from where it came. It was of some question as that was in question paper but in believe me I have not copied. I don’t know how it came and from where. Sir I have tried my level best to perform in Examination. I know it was mistake that a cheat came from somewhere and I kept it with me. I should have told teachers immediately but sir time was not left so I was busy in writing paper due to lack of time. Sir give me last chance from next time I will not indulge in such acts and I will keep my senses aware that I should see if any cheat is there or not. Pardon me sir and forgive me. Thank you, Your faithfully, Vibha Avasthi, Roll No. 209234” 16. We will ignore the spelling mistake of the word ‘chit’ in the afore-extracted application of the appellant/writ-petitioner, who has, interestingly, misspelled it as “cheat”. However, her contention that somebody had thrown the sheet of the paper from behind and she had put in her pencil box hardly inspires any confidence. Earliest stand of the appellant/writ-petitioner in the afore-quoted application was that a chit of the paper came to her from somewhere and that she had no idea whose chit was it and from where it came but in the aforesaid application the appellant/writ-petitioner admitted that it was her mistake that a chit came from somewhere and kept it with her. She should have told teachers immediately about her but the time was not left as she was busy in writing paper. She should have told teachers immediately about her but the time was not left as she was busy in writing paper. She then further wrote that she be given last chance and that she would not indulge in such acts and would keep her sense aware that she should see if any chit is there or not. She prayed for pardon. The facts in Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Hotel Management, Nutrition & Catering Technology, Chandigarh Vs. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, supra, were somewhat identical, in which case also the concerned student of degree course was found with slip in his possession while writing the examination. The slip contained the material relevant to the examination. The student in that case also admitted his guilt and expressed his regrets and also offered a promise that he would not repeat it in future. The Supreme Court held that all that was material was that the examinee brought the slip of paper into the examination hall pertaining to examination in question and the same was found in his possession and it amounted to malpractice, whether the same was used by him or not. ` 17. The argument of discrimination is also wholly untenable as the respondents have clarified in regard to the candidates, namely, Kanika Jain and Vikas Sepat, that the subject experts opined that caught material in their case was not related with the question paper. 18. Contention that the decision had already been taken by the Unfair-means Inquiry Committee which is evident from the communication of the Controller of Examination sent to the Principal of the Medical College, is noted to be rejected because this communication so sent, as has been rightly argued by the learned counsel for the respondent-RUHS, itself reproduced the recommendations of the Unfair-means Inquiry Committee with reference to Ordinance 152(4)(c)(i) and also stated that this recommendation is subject to approval by the Board of Management. This communication was sent to the Principal of the Medical College so as to ensure that the appellant/writ-petitioner was not debarred from submitting her examination form. This was intended to facilitate her appearance in the examination if eventually the Board of Management was not inclined to award any penalty to her but that was not to be so. The Board of Management in its 121st Meeting held on 01.10.2018 approved the recommendation of the Unfair-means Inquiry Committee. This was intended to facilitate her appearance in the examination if eventually the Board of Management was not inclined to award any penalty to her but that was not to be so. The Board of Management in its 121st Meeting held on 01.10.2018 approved the recommendation of the Unfair-means Inquiry Committee. Once it is proved that the chit of the paper found in possession of the appellant/writ-petitioner was not only relevant to the subject but has also been actually used, the Ordinance 152(5)(ii) would come into play. As per the norms of punishment given in Ordinance 152(4)(i), if the behaviour of the candidate on being caught is found satisfactory, then he is liable to be punished for cancellation of the present examination and he shall be further debarred for one subsequent examination, if the examination is held once a year or two subsequent examinations if the examination is held twice a year, provided that if the material found in possession of the candidate and/or the extent of copying done by the candidate is of insignificant nature, the punishment may be relaxed to the extent of cancelling that particular paper. But under Ordinance 152(4)(c)(i) where a candidate is found to have copied from or used the material caught and if his/her behaviour on being caught is found satisfactory the present examination shall be cancelled and he/she shall be debarred from one subsequent examination if examination is held once a year or two subsequent examinations if the examination is held twice a year. However, if the material found in possession of the candidate and the extent of copying done by the candidate is of insignificant nature, the punishment may be relaxed to the extent of cancelling the present examination only. In the present case, the material that was found in possession of the appellant/writ-petitioner was not only relevant to the paper but it was found to have been actually used and therefore it cannot be held that the norms of awarding the punishment have not been properly followed. The scope of interference by this court is extremely limited and doing so only because the appellant/writ-petitioner would face hardship, would be a case of misplaced sympathy. 19. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. This also disposes of the stay application.