JUDGMENT : At the time of hearing of the matter, it was brought to the notice of this Court that owing to the interim order the impact of the impugned decision Ext.P1 was over. 2. Smt.Anjali Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the decision Ext.P6 merged into Ext.P1 is wholly capricious and stigmatic in as much as at every stage of filling up of examination index card, the examiner is required to mention regarding the previous debarment or not. Such a clause would have a deep impact upon the reputation and service career. On the basis of some complaint whereby a student i.e., George Joseph, 3rd Semester LLM candidate and leader of students' organizations of Government Law College, Ernakulam, awarded lesser marks, an Enquiry Committee was constituted and prior to that petitioner was served with a notice which he replied vide statement Ext.P5. On perusal of the enquiry report none of the factors enumerated in the statement had been referred to except the allegations. Such a decision of the member Syndicate issue recommendation for barring him from the Board of Examiner is wholly preposterous and erroneous. At least entire statement should have been taken into note while imposing suspension. It is in that background petitioner prays for deciding the controversy on merits though period of debarment was already over. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Mahatma Gandhi University submits that no cause of action survives owing to the fact that period of debarment as per the interim order of this Court is already over. The clause in the examination card is at all not stigmatic, in a routine manner which would not have any impact on the service career and thus urges this Court for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper books and of the view that there is some force in the argument of Smt.Anjali Radhakrishnan. The recommendation of member syndicate Ext.P6 is extracted hereinbelow: “MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY Report of enquiry into the complaints lodged by Sri.George Joseph, IIIrd Semester LLM Candidate and leaders of Student Organisations from Govt. Law College, Ernakulam against Dr.V.R.Jayadevan teacher of the College. Ref:U.O.No.849/EA 11/2160/2011/Exam dated 07.07.2011. Sri George Joseph, III Semester, LLM Student of Govt. The recommendation of member syndicate Ext.P6 is extracted hereinbelow: “MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY Report of enquiry into the complaints lodged by Sri.George Joseph, IIIrd Semester LLM Candidate and leaders of Student Organisations from Govt. Law College, Ernakulam against Dr.V.R.Jayadevan teacher of the College. Ref:U.O.No.849/EA 11/2160/2011/Exam dated 07.07.2011. Sri George Joseph, III Semester, LLM Student of Govt. Law College, Ernakulam and certain leaders of Student Organisations in the College in a letter complained that the students of Law College are affected psychologically due to the sadistic approach of Dr.V.R.Jayadevan, a teacher of the College. Sri.George Joseph failed in 1st Semester Teaching Practice Examination conducted in December 2008 in which Dr.Jayadevan was a member of the Examination Board. Sri.George Joseph had got very good marks for all other papers and the failure in Teaching Practice Examination was due to the intervention and influence of Dr.Jayadevan according to the candidate. Sri.George Joseph requested that the marks awarded to him in Teaching Practice Examination may be reviewed. Sri.Firose E.S., lender of the Student Organisation, Kerala Students Union stated before the Commission that there were several complaints against Dr.Jayadevan in previous occassions and students are reluctant to appear before the Commission due to the fear of harassment. Dr.Jayadevan denied all allegations in his statement. He was anyone of the three members of the Examination Board which conducted the 1st Semester Teaching Practice Examination of December 2008 for LLM. The other two members of the Board. Prof.S.Usha and Dr.Lovely Paulose also gave same marks to George Joseph. Further the marks given to the candidates by the three members in the Board are almost identical. The allegations regarding the marks awarded in the viva voce Examination of Final year LLB Nov.2010 is also baseless. In that Examination also similar marks were given by all the examiners and there was no discrimination. Internal assessment examination were conducted strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued by the University. Dr.Lovely Paulose, the member of the Board of Examinations for Teaching Practice stated before the Commission that marks were given by examiner individually without consulting each other strictly based on their performance and knowledge in the subject. The Commission verified all the documents related to the conduct of Teaching Practice Examination and Internal Assessment. Dr.Lovely Paulose, the member of the Board of Examinations for Teaching Practice stated before the Commission that marks were given by examiner individually without consulting each other strictly based on their performance and knowledge in the subject. The Commission verified all the documents related to the conduct of Teaching Practice Examination and Internal Assessment. From the documents verified and the statements given by the students and teachers, the Commission came to the conclusion that there is no material evidence to prove that students were harassed or discriminated. However, in most of the examinations where Dr.V.R.Jayadevan was in charge of evaluation or a Board member, the marks awarded were comparatively lower. There were similar complaints in previous occasions also. Hence the Commission recommends that Dr.V.R.Jayadevan may be excluded from the Board of Examinations for IIIrd and IVth Semester LLM 2011-2012.” 4. There is no advertence or reference to the statements offered by the petitioner. It is most intriguing that the complaints by the students and the similar organizations are accepted against the teachers and such kind of actions like the one in the present case are taken against the faculty members. 5. In my view allegation in the complaint should have been proved by direct and cogent evidence and not entertained at the drop of the hat. Otherwise, it would be very difficult for the Faculty to deliver lecture which is most sensitive. A Lecture/Professor/Associate Professor at the time of imparting Lecture is required to be free from any pressure or any anxiety. False complaints actuated on behalf of some sort of rancour would definitely be matter of concern. Without commenting further on allegations of the complaints, I am of the view that plain and simple reading of decision Ext.P6 culminated into Ext.P1 barring the petitioner from the Board of Examiner for a period of one year was not called for. Accordingly, Exts. P1 & P6 are quashed. 6. Writ petition is allowed in the aforementioned directions.