JUDGMENT : 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs: "(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this petition and issue a writ of mandamus, and/or any other appropriate writ, orders or directions to quash and set aside the impugned office order dated 28.01.2020( at Annexure-A) and further be pleased to hold and declare that the committee and it's act are illegal, null and void ab initio and/or findings recorded by the Committee are perverse and bad in the law and to that extent subsequent resolution passed by the syndicate dated 21.01.2020 is also bad in the eyes of law. (B) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, orders or directions to the respondent no.1 to declare the petitioner's full result for B.Sc., 5th semester examination especially considering answer book numbered 1122817 for subject code: US05CICH04. (C) Costs of this petition to be provided for to the petitioner. (D) Pending admission, hearing and/or final disposal of this petition, your Lordships may be pleased to stay implementation and execution of impugned order dated 28.01.2020 and direct the respondent no.2 to immediately conduct internal college exam and direct the respondent n.1 to immediately issue hall ticket for B.Sc., 6th semester final university examination which is scheduled to be conducted from 23.03.2020 onwards. (E) Ad interim ex-parte relief in terms of paragraph (D) above; (F) Your Lordships may be pleased to pass any other appropriate and just orders in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts in brief are as under: 2.1 It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is pursuing a course in the Bachelor of Science (B.Sc) in Industrial Chemistry run by the V.P.& R.T.T.P. Science College, the respondent No.2 affiliated to the Sardar Patel University. 2.2 It is the case of the petitioner that his academic career right from the S.S.C has been brilliant and he has been performing well. It is his case that he has received the Certificate of Honors from the National Service Commission, he has participated in the quiz competition in the year 2019 and has also received a Certificate for participating in seminar in 2019. 2.3 It is the case of the petitioner that he secured 80% marks (214 out of 270) in the 5th semester internal examination conducted by his college. 2.3 It is the case of the petitioner that he secured 80% marks (214 out of 270) in the 5th semester internal examination conducted by his college. The examination started on 11.11.2019 and completed on 27.11.2019. The seat number of the petitioner was 1917. 2.4 It is the case of the petitioner that on 18.11.2019, when the fourth exam paper was in progress, he went out to ease himself at the washroom when his foot suddenly touched a book, he bent down to pick up the book and he was accosted by a gentleman who questioned as to what he was doing. The concerned person followed him, took the book from his hand despite petitioner's objection. The petitioner was taken to the office, his I-card was seized and though the petitioner had completed approximately 80% of the paper, the question paper was seized and he was given fresh set of answer book and asked to write from the beginning. He was then told to write down the incident that unfolded on a piece of paper. 2.5 On 09.01.2020, a communication was sent to the petitioner by the Sardar Patel University. According to the petitioner, it highlighted nine instances of unfair means that could form the basis of an inquiry. Number nine was blank. The communication stated that in accordance with ordinance 68 and ordinance 92, the petitioner was to remain present on 17.01.2020 at 10 a.m. at the Vice Chancellor's Office. It is the case of the petitioner that when he remained present on 17.01.2020 before the Committee, known as the Examination Committee. The petitioner was given a blank paper and was asked to write down the entire episode admitting his mistake. The Committee showed him some books and chit which were recovered from the books. The petitioner denied having resorted to unfair means. Vide order dated 28.01.2020, which is impugned in the present petition, the petitioner's entire 5th semester result was cancelled and the petitioner was dearred from two subsequent examinations i.e. March / April / May, 2020 and October / November / December 2020. 2.6 On 05.03.2020, the petitioner preferred an RTI Application for CCTV Footage, however, the exam centre replied that the RTI Act is not applicable. It is under these constraints, that the petitioner has filed the present petition. 3. Mr. 2.6 On 05.03.2020, the petitioner preferred an RTI Application for CCTV Footage, however, the exam centre replied that the RTI Act is not applicable. It is under these constraints, that the petitioner has filed the present petition. 3. Mr. Sandip Munjyasara, learned advocate, has appeared on behalf of the petitioner and made the following submissions: (A) Mr.Munjyasara, learned advocate, would submit that there is nothing on record to prove that the petitioner is guilty. In support of his submission, Mr.Munjyasara, learned advocate, would also rely on the letter dated 09.01.2020. He would submit that the incident happened when the petitioner went to the washroom, accidentally his foot touched a book, which he picked up at that very moment, someone from the University / College accosted him and found that the book that was in his possession was used by the petitioner for unfair means. He submitted that there is no provision under the ordinance 68 to seize the answer book and give a fresh answer-sheet for the petitioner to undertake the examination again. (B) Mr.Munjyasara, learned advocate, also invited the attention of the Court to a letter dated 09.01.2020 and would submit that the letter lists 9 charges which can be said to be unfair means. As far as charge 9 is concerned, the letter would show a blank against the letter, and therefore, no specific charge was mentioned by the University. It was admittedly not the case of the University that the first eight charges applied to the petitioner, and therefore, without framing a separate charge and leaving it as blank at serial No.9, the action of the University was unsustainable. (C) Mr.Munjyasara, learned advocate, then invited my attention to the ordinance 68 and ordinance 92 which are part of the paper book. At page 26, Mr.Munjyasara, learned advocate, would draw the attention of the Court to remark below ordinance 68 which suggested that the ordinance was approved by the Syndicate on 05.12.2014 and the Senate on 27.03.2015. As far as ordinance 92 was concerned, no such remark existed, and therefore, in his submission at the time when the decision was taken by the so called Unfair Means Committee, there was no validly constituted Committee to examine the issue in case of the petitioner, and therefore, even on this ground the entire exercise of holding the petitioner guilty of unfair means should fail. (D) Mr.Munjyasara, learned advocate, would submit that in accordance with the provisions of Section 43(1) and 43(2) of the Universities Act, 1950, the ordinance making power is conferred to the Syndicate of the University and all ordinances made by the Syndicate should be laid on the table of the Senate respectively. This Mr.Munjyasara, would submit is evident from their affidavit-in-reply together with which they have annexed the resolutions. Mr.Munjyasara, learned advocate, would submit that as far the examination committee of unfair means is concerned, there does not exist any Unfair Committee in accordance with ordinance 92. He would, therefore, submit that the entire exercise should fall and the petitioner should be given a clean chit from the allegation of having adopted unfair means. (E) Mr.Munjyasara, learned advocate, also submitted that there is a violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as: (i) The Committee did not act judiciously and fairly. That the evidence on record showed that there was violation of principles of natural justice. (ii) That on 17.01.2020, before the commencement of hearing, the petitioner was dictated to write down on a blank paper his statement. (iii) Not a single document of any kind or a statement of the Junior Supervisor was provided or the examination co-ordinator's statement was provided. (iv) No one, including the Junior Supervisor or a co-ordinator of examination centre who caught the petitioner was offered for examination or cross-examination. (v) The petitioner never admitted his guilt, and therefore, nothing can be said to be a concluded issue as far as the petitioner's case of adopting unfair means is concerned. (F) Mr.Munjyasara, learned advocate, then pointing out to the academic record of the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been meted out with a unusual harsh penalty for no fault of his. Mr. Munjyasara, learned advocate, relied on a decision of this Court rendered in the matter of Rajnish Kumar Rai vs. The Gujarat University & Anr., decided on 16.10.2008 in Special Civil Application No. 8693 of 2008. 4. Mr.Munjyasara, learned advocate has taken me through the affidavit-in-reply and the statement of the petitioner which was recorded to submit that there was no admission on the part of the petitioner and those statement cannot be taken to be as incriminating evidence to nail the petitioner. 5. Mr.Sudhanshu Jha, learned advocate has appeared for the University and submitted that the facts are eloquent enough. 5. Mr.Sudhanshu Jha, learned advocate has appeared for the University and submitted that the facts are eloquent enough. His submission is as under: (A) It is the case of the respondent-University that the petitioner was caught copying on 18.11.2019 in the paper of "Business Organization". The examination center co-ordinator had recorded his statement. Mr.Jha, learned advocate, would read out the statement of the petitioner and indicate that reading the statement together with the remarks of the Junior Supervisor would indicate that the Junior Supervisor brought the candidate to the examination with the reading material from the washroom. (B) Mr.Jha, learned advocate, would further submit that an unfair means was adopted at the University examination and the University Syndicate had in accordance with the ordinance, constituted an Unfair Means Committee. He would invite the attention of the Court to page 35 and would suggest that the Committee was constituted in accordance with the resolutions and the ordinances and was mend by atleast 12 people and there was nothing to show that the Committee was invalid. 6. Mr. Jha, learned advocate, would submit that the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing in accordance with the ordinance 68(A) of the Act. In accordance with the principles of natural justice, the petitioner was asked to remain present on 17.01.2020. He has taken me through the Minutes of the Meeting of the Unfair Committee and suggested that it was unequivocally recorded in the committee that the petitioner had resorted to unfair means by looking at the material which was in the bathroom. He denied that the petitioner was made to write on a blank piece of paper. In fact, it was he who gave a confession which is at annexure-V page 51. 7. Looking to the Minutes of the Unfair Committee Meeting, Mr. Sudhanshu Jha, learned advocate, would submit that a specific finding has been arrived at by the Unfair Committee Meeting that the petitioner resorted to an unfair means, and therefore, was rightly punished. He would submit that a notification has been issued with the approval of the syndicate of which the petitioner was informed by an order dated 28.01.2020. 8. Sudhanshu Jha, learned advocate, would submit that a specific finding has been arrived at by the Unfair Committee Meeting that the petitioner resorted to an unfair means, and therefore, was rightly punished. He would submit that a notification has been issued with the approval of the syndicate of which the petitioner was informed by an order dated 28.01.2020. 8. Having considered the submissions made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the issue at hand that needs to be considered by this Court is whether when a question is raised on the issue to decide on the suitability of the Court entering into the arena of appreciating the findings of the Unfair Means Committee of the petitioner having resorted to such unfair means, can the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India substitute its own view. The answer to the question lies in the reasonings that I hereinafter give: (A) Perusal of the Unfair Means Committee Report would indicate that the Committee found that the petitioner was found in possession of the material and the book of the same subject of which the examination which was being undertaken. So is evident from reading the Minutes of the Committee Meeting which undertook the exercise of assessing unfair means of several students. The defence of the petitioner that he was in the bathroom to ease himself and that he accidentally touched a book by foot in the washroom and and picked it up and were therefore caught may be a plausible examination or an explanation, but when before the Inquiry Committee it has been found on the basis of the statement that he has recorded that he apologizes for the mistake that he committed and would never indulge in such a malpracice again suggests that the petitioner is now crying foul on the question of principles of natural justice being violated when on the basis of an assessment made by the Unfair Means Committee he is found to be indulging in unfair means. 9. In a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not get into the question of examining whether the petitioner did indulge in unfair means and /or whether there was sufficient material for the Committee to enter into the arena and hold otherwise or not. The assessment of unfair means is unlike a criminal trial. 10. The assessment of unfair means is unlike a criminal trial. 10. In fact, from the decision relied upon by Mr. Munjyasara, learned advocate for the petitioner, in the case of Rajnishkumar Rai (supra), the question has been elaborately discussed as to the limit of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It will be in the fitness of things to reproduce paragraphs 21 to 25 of the aforesaid decision, which read as under: "21. In the decision of this Court in case of Sardar Patel University v. Minal R. Jogi and Anr., reported 2000 (2) GLH 199 , the Division Bench of this Court did record that the writing on the ruler pertain to the question of Impact of subsidies on fiscal management of economics and its relevance from the view point of global effectiveness. At para 4, it was, inter alia, observed as under:- “4....So far as the departmental inquiries are concerned, there is no question of strict burden of proof and the matter is to be decided on the yard stick of preponderance of probability. So far as the misconduct committed at the examination is concerned, sometimes the burden would be not even to the extent of yard stick of preponderance of probability but less than that. Mere finding of incriminating material is sufficient to hold the examinee guilty of Whether incriminating material was intended for copying or was actually used or was innocently possessed may be relevant for imposing punishment. The body conducting the examination has to point out the misconduct. It is irrelevant whether the student has used the material for the purpose of answering the question or not. It is not necessary that the material which was found from the student must have been utilised for the purpose of answering the question. To hold the student guilty of misconduct it is sufficient if the material is found from the student pertaining to the subjects.” Thereafter, it was found by the Court that the material was pertaining to the subject and, therefore, the misconduct was committed. The pertinent aspect is that the principles of relevancy of the material to the subject of the examination is not departed from even the said decision. 22. The Apex Court in case of “Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad and Anr. The pertinent aspect is that the principles of relevancy of the material to the subject of the examination is not departed from even the said decision. 22. The Apex Court in case of “Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad and Anr. v. Bagleshwar Prasad and Anr.”, reported in AIR 1966 SC 875 , did inter alia observe at para12 as under:- “12.... it is necessary to bear in mind that educational institutions like the Universities or appellant No.1 set up Enquiry Committees to deal with the problem posed by the adoption of unfair means by candidates, and normally it is within the jurisdiction of such domestic Tribunals to decide all relevant questions in the light of the evidence adduced before them. In the matter of adoption of unfair means, direct evidence may sometimes be available, but cases may arise where direct evidence is not available and the question will have to be considered in the light of probabilities and circumstantial evidence. This problem which education institutions have to face from time to time is a serious problem and unless there is justification to do so, Courts should be slow to interfere with the decisions of domestic Tribunal appointed by educational bodies like the Universities. In dealing with the validity of the impugned orders passed by Universities under Art.226, the High Court is not sitting in appeal over the decision in question; its jurisdiction is limited and though it is true that if the impugned order is not supported by any evidence at all, the High Court would be justified to quash that order. But the conclusion that the impugned order is not supported by any evidence must be reached after considering the question as to whether probabilities and circumstantial evidence do not justify the said conclusion. But the conclusion that the impugned order is not supported by any evidence must be reached after considering the question as to whether probabilities and circumstantial evidence do not justify the said conclusion. Enquiries held by domestic Tribunals in such cases must, no doubt, be fair and students against whom charges are framed must be given adequate opportunities to defend themselves, and in holding such enquiries, the Tribunals must scrupulously follow rules of natural justice; but it would, we think, not be reasonable to import into the seen enquiries all considerations which govern criminal trials in ordinary Courts of law.” Thereafter, the Apex Court found in the facts of that case that the inquiry had been fair and respondent was given opportunity of making his defence and, therefore, the decision of the High Court for quashing the decision of the University was interfered with. 23. The Apex Court in case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. IRS Gandhi, reported in AIR 1991 (2) SC 716, has taken the same view of the Apex Court in its earlier decision in the case of “Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabadand Anr.” (supra). 24. It was further, inter alia, observed by the Apex Court at para 37 as under:- “37....It is 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. In grave cases like forgery, fraud, conspiracy, misappropriation, etc., seldom direct evidence would be available. Only the circumstantial evidence would furnish the proof. In our considered view inference from the evidence and circumstances must be carefully distinguished from conjectures or speculation. The mind is prone to take pleasure to adapt circumstances to one another and even in straining them a little to force them to form parts of one connected whole. There must be evidence direct or circumstantial to deduce necessary inferences in proof of the facts in issue. There can be no inferences unless there are objective facts, direct or circumstantial from which to infer the other fact which it is sought to establish. In some cases the other facts can be inferred, as much as is practical, as if they had been actually observed. There can be no inferences unless there are objective facts, direct or circumstantial from which to infer the other fact which it is sought to establish. In some cases the other facts can be inferred, as much as is practical, as if they had been actually observed. In other cases the inferences do not go beyond reasonable probability. If there are no positive proved facts, oral, documentary or circumstantial from which the inferences can be made the method of inference fails and what is left is mere speculation or conjecture. Therefore, when an inference of proof that a fact in dispute has been held established there must be some material facts or circumstances on record from which such an inference could be drawn. 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. Standard of proof cannot be put in a strait-jacket formula. No mathematical formula could be laid on degree of proof. The probative value could be gauged from facts and circumstances in a given case. The standard of proof is the same both in civil cases and domestic enquiries.” (Emphasis supplied) Thereafter, in the facts of that case, it was found by the Apex Court that the evidence deduced by the Education Standing Committee to record the findings that at the best of either the examinee or the parent or guardian is based on the evidence on record were part of fabrication and, therefore, the order of the High Court for quashing and setting aside the decision was interfered with. 25. The Apex Court, in the case of “Central Board of Secondary Education v. Vineeta Mahajan”, reported in 1994 SC 733, inter alia, observed at para 5 as under:- “5....The Rule clearly defines "the use of unfair means at the examination" and lays down in simple language that a candidate having in possession, papers relevant to the examination in the paper concerned, shall be deemed to have used unfair means at the examination. The sine qua non, for them is conduct under the rule, is the recovery of the incriminating material from the possession of the candidate. The sine qua non, for them is conduct under the rule, is the recovery of the incriminating material from the possession of the candidate. Once the candidate is found to be in possession of papers relevant to the examination, the requirement of the Rule is satisfied and there is no escape from the conclusion that the candidate has used unfair means at the examination. The Rule does not make any distinction between bona fide or mala fide possession of the incriminating material.”(Emphasis supplied) Thereafter, the Apex Court interfered with the decision of the High Court, which was on the basis that the material was not used by the student, as was an irrelevant consideration for examining the question of imposition of the penalty." 11. Reading the aforesaid decisions which are aptly considered by the Hon'ble Court, what is culled out is that in the matter of adoption of unfair means, direct evidence may some times be available, but cases may arise where direct evidence is not available and the question will have to be considered in light of probabilities and circumstantial evidence. It will be worthwhile to consider what has been referred to and relied upon by considering the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. IRS Gandhi, reported in AIR 1991 (2) SC 716, where on consideration it was held that such an exercise need not be proved strictly by in confirmity of the Evidence Act. It can be proved on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and not by a stricto senso criminal trial. 12. Accordingly, having considered the submissions made by Mr.Munjyasara, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Sudhanshu Jha, learned advocate for the respondent - University, what is evident is that in an exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court will not examine whether the assessment of evidence at the hands of an Unfair Means Committee is bad. In facts of this case, the petitioner was found with material which was of the same subject matter of which the examination was to be held. He was, therefore, confronted by the Unfair Means Committee where he gave a written note of having apologized and thought it fit to tell the Committee that he would not so do it in future. He was, therefore, confronted by the Unfair Means Committee where he gave a written note of having apologized and thought it fit to tell the Committee that he would not so do it in future. Once having done so, a complete turn around is sought to be made now, to suggest that, that was not a case and it was under coercion that the petitioner was made to give such a statement. In respectfully disagreeing with Mr.Munjyasara's submissions, learned advocate for the petitioner, I would hold that this Court in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. The petition is, therefore, dismissed with no orders as to costs. Mr. Munjyasara, learned advocate for the petitioner, requests that he would want to avail the opportunity of filing an appeal. In the meantime, the petitioner may be permitted to appear at the examinations. The request is opposed by Mr. Sudhanshu Jha, learned advocate for the respondent. The request of the learned advocate for the petitioner is rejected.