JUDGMENT : ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, J. 1. Heard Mr. C. Raghu and Mr. N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the writ petitioners. Also heard Mr. Guttapalem Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences (for short, ‘the University’). 2. In the appeals filed by the writ petitioners, Mr. Guttapalem Vijaya Kumar appears for the University and the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education appears for the State. In the appeals filed by the University, Mr. C. Raghu appears for the writ petitioner in W.A.No.132 of 2021 and Mr. N. Ashwani Kumar appears for the writ petitioners in W.A.Nos.147, 148, 149, 150 and 198 of 2021 and the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education appears for the State. 3. All these appeals were listed together and they were analogously heard. As the core issues raised in the appeals filed by the writ petitioners are same and so also the core issues raised in the appeals filed by the University, all these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. 4. It is also to be noted at this juncture that though separate judgments dated 17.02.2021 were delivered by the learned single Judge, the substratum of the judgments is one and the same. 5. The Special Observer appointed during 2nd MBBS theory examinations at Guntur Medical College, Guntur, reported that on 07.11.2020, Mogili Nagendra Babu, Bhavanam Kranthi Kalyan Reddy, Kamireddy Rishit, Kovi Rakesh, Nuthalapati Mohith Sai Umesh Chandra, Paladugu Mytreeya and Samanthapudi Lakshmi Tejaswi, students of Katuri Medical College, were found copying during Microbiology Paper-II examination in the examination hall with the help of using printed material and thus, were resorting to malpractice. A common Memo dated 12.11.2020 was issued by the Controller of Examinations of the University, asking the above students as to why their appearance from the examination should not be cancelled and why they should not be debarred from appearing for the examination and for prosecuting further studies for the misconduct and requiring them to submit their explanation to him within seven days from the date of receipt of Memo, making it clear that if the explanation of the candidates did not reach the office on or before the specified date, the cases will be disposed of on the basis of the material already available. A request was made to the Principal of Katuri Medical College to serve the Memo to the candidates and to obtain acknowledgement. 6. For the present, suffice it to say that explanations were submitted and thereafter, individual orders dated 24.11.2020 were communicated to the students by the Controller of Examinations stating that the Malpractice Committee of the University, which had met on 24.11.2020, after considering the Special Observer’s report, explanation of the students and the materials seized from them, came to the conclusion that the students were guilty for possessing forbidden material into the examination hall and that the Vice Chancellor of the University, after taking into the report of the Chief Superintendent and Special Observer, explanation of the students and the recommendations of the Malpractice Committee, had come to the conclusion that the ends of justice would be met by awarding punishment of disqualifying the students for a period of one year including November, 2020 examination, thereby imposing the said punishment. 7. Challenging the aforesaid orders, Kovi Rakesh, Bhavanam Kranthi Kalyan Reddy, Kamireddy Rishit, Nuthalapati Mohith Sai Umesh Chandra, Paladugu Mytreeya and Samanthapudi Lakshmi Tejaswi, approached this Court by filing separate writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which were registered as W.P.Nos.22670 of 2020, 23530 of 2020, 24326 of 2020, 23011 of 2020, 24325 of 2020 and 24328 of 2020, respectively. 8. It is not clear whether Mogili Nagendra Babu had approached this Court by filing a writ petition or whether he had accepted the proceedings dated 24.11.2020. 9. By separate orders, all dated 17.02.2021, the learned single Judge set aside the proceedings dated 24.11.2020 imposing punishment and giving liberty to the University to issue fresh show-cause notice to the writ petitioners along with the copy of the report of the Special Observer dated 07.11.2020, copy of the materials seized from the petitioners and the copy of the letters addressed by the petitioners accepting their guilt and after obtaining explanation from the petitioners, to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 10. W.A.No.123 and 132 of 2021 have arisen in respect of the order dated 17.02.2021 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.22670 of 2020 and W.A.No.123 of 2021 is filed by the writ petitioner-student, while W.A.No.132 of 2021 is filed by the University. 11. 10. W.A.No.123 and 132 of 2021 have arisen in respect of the order dated 17.02.2021 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.22670 of 2020 and W.A.No.123 of 2021 is filed by the writ petitioner-student, while W.A.No.132 of 2021 is filed by the University. 11. W.A.Nos.154 and 149 of 2021 have arisen in respect of an order dated 17.02.2021 passed by a learned single Judge in W.P.No.23011 of 2020. W.A.No.154 of 2021 is filed by the writ petitioner-student, while W.A.No.149 of 2021 is filed by the University. 12. W.A.Nos.153 and 147 of 2021 have arisen in respect of an order dated 17.02.2021 passed by a learned single Judge in W.P.No.24325 of 2020. W.A.No.153 of 2021 is filed by the writ petitioner-student, while W.A.No.147 of 2021 is filed by the University. 13. W.A.Nos.155 and 148 of 2021 have arisen in respect of an order dated 17.02.2021 passed by a learned single Judge in W.P.No.23530 of 2020. W.A.No.155 of 2021 is filed by the writ petitioner-student, while W.A.No.148 of 2021 is filed by the University. 14. W.A.Nos.156 and 150 of 2021 have arisen in respect of an order dated 17.02.2021 passed by a learned single Judge in W.P.No.24328 of 2020. W.A.No.156 of 2021 is filed by the writ petitioner-student, while W.A.No.150 of 2021 is filed by the University. 15. W.A.Nos.152 and 198 of 2021 have arisen in respect of an order dated 17.02.2021 passed by a learned single Judge in W.P.No.24326 of 2020. W.A.No.152 of 2021 is filed by the writ petitioner-student, while W.A.No.198 of 2021 is filed by the University. 16. The case presented by the writ petitioner in W.P.No.22670 of 2020 is that he is a student of 2nd year MBBS course in Katuri Medical College and was appearing in the referred batch for the examinations relating to pathology and microbiology. While writing Microbiology Paper-II on 07.11.2020, he found a slip near the table and brought the same to the notice of the invigilator. He along with others was asked to leave the examination hall and he was not allowed to appear in theory of Pharmacology subject. He received a Memo dated 12.11.2020 issued by the University, alleging that he was involved in copying with the help of printed material and asking him to submit an explanation. Pursuant thereto, he submitted his explanation on 18.11.2020. He received a Memo dated 12.11.2020 issued by the University, alleging that he was involved in copying with the help of printed material and asking him to submit an explanation. Pursuant thereto, he submitted his explanation on 18.11.2020. Thereafter, the University passed an order dated 24.11.2020, imposing punishment of disqualifying the petitioner for a period of one year including November, 2020 examination. 17. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Registrar of the University, it is stated that the writ petitioner was appearing for Pathology, Microbiology and Pharmacology examinations of 2nd year MBBS course at Katuri Medical College. It is stated that one Mrs. Dukkipati Kalyani, Associate Professor, Siddhartha Medical College, Vijayawada, was appointed as Special Observer to look after the proceedings of the theory examinations at Guntur Medical College, Guntur. She had reported commission of malpractice by the writ petitioner in the prescribed proforma along with the explanation of the writ petitioner, wherein the student himself had given consent that he was caught committing malpractice. On the basis of the report of the Special Observer dated 07.11.2020, along with the seized material, i.e., hall ticket, answer script and written material which was taken from the writ petitioner by the Special Observer, the University issued a Memo dated 12.11.2020 through the Principal, Katuri Medical College, Chinakondrupadu, whereby the writ petitioner along with six other students were directed to explain as to why their appearance from the examination should not be cancelled and why they should not be debarred from appearing for the examination and for prosecuting further studies for their misconduct, within a period of seven days. Pursuant thereto, the writ petitioner submitted his explanation. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the answer script which was given to the writ petitioner contained a heading ‘INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CANDIDATES’, in which under instruction No.10, it was clearly stated that “copying in any form is a very serious offence, carrying severe punishment. Do not carry any written or printed matter, pagers, cell phones and any other electronic gadgets in any form to the examination hall”. Sections 2 and 3 of Andhra Pradesh Public Examinations (Prevention of Malpractices and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (for short, ‘the Act of 1997’), are extracted in the counter-affidavit. Do not carry any written or printed matter, pagers, cell phones and any other electronic gadgets in any form to the examination hall”. Sections 2 and 3 of Andhra Pradesh Public Examinations (Prevention of Malpractices and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (for short, ‘the Act of 1997’), are extracted in the counter-affidavit. It is further stated that as per Rule 3 of the Standing Orders of the Executive Council of the University, if during a university examination, a candidate is found in mala fide possession of any material, such as, papers, books or notes or written notes on any part of the clothes worn by the candidate or on any part of his body, or table or desk, or foot rule and for instruments like set squares, protractors, slide rules etc., with notes written on them, which is relevant to the subject of the examinations, he shall be disqualified from appearing in any University examination for one year including that in which he is found guilty. It is also stated that a Committee of Malpractices was constituted vide letter dated 16.03.1995 by the Executive Council of the University to examine the issue relating to malpractices as per the records furnished by the special observer and it is for the Committee to decide whether the candidate is guilty or not guilty. 18. It is further stated that the Malpractice Committee of the University met on 24.11.2020 and after considering Special Observer’s report, explanation of the candidate and materials seized from the student, the Committee came to the conclusion that the petitioner was found guilty for possessing forbidden material into the examination hall and the Vice-Chancellor of the University, after taking into account the report of the Chief Superintendent and Special Observer, explanation of the student and the recommendations of the Malpractice Committee, has come to the conclusion that ends of justice would be met by awarding the punishment of disqualifying the petitioner for a period of one year including November, 2020 examination. 19. The case presented by the writ petitioners in W.P.Nos.23011 of 2020, 24325 of 2020, 23530 of 2020, 24328 of 2020 and 24326 of 2020 is same. They stated that while appearing for Microbiology Paper-II, the Chief Superintendent/Special Observer present at the examination hall had suddenly snatched their answer sheets and hall tickets alleging that they were carrying printed material with them. They stated that while appearing for Microbiology Paper-II, the Chief Superintendent/Special Observer present at the examination hall had suddenly snatched their answer sheets and hall tickets alleging that they were carrying printed material with them. Despite submitting that they were not carrying any printed material, they were not allowed to finish the examination and they were forced to sign on some blank pages. They submitted their explanations to the Memo dated 12.11.2020 issued by the University. Thereafter, the University passed individual orders dated 24.11.2020, imposing punishment of disqualifying them for a period of one year including November, 2020 examination. 20. The stand taken by the University in the aforesaid writ petitions is more or less the same as taken in W.P.No.22670 of 2020. 21. Learned counsel for the University submits that the learned single Judge was not correct in setting aside the proceedings dated 24.11.2020 inasmuch as on due consideration of the relevant materials, including the report of the Special Observer, explanation of the candidates and materials seized from the candidates, conclusion was drawn that the writ petitioners were guilty of possessing forbidden material into the examination hall and accordingly, punishment was imposed. He has also submitted that the writ petitioners themselves admitted their own guilt of having committed malpractice and therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, principles of natural justice are fully complied with and no case was made out by the writ petitioners for directing issuance of a fresh show-cause notice to them in terms of the directions contained in the impugned orders of the learned single Judge. He strenuously urged that the petitioners have taken contradictory stands while acknowledging guilt of committing misconduct when they were caught red-handed and in the explanations furnished by them in pursuance of the Memo dated 12.11.2020 and that itself demonstrates the hollowness of the claim made by the petitioners that they are not guilty of committing any malpractice. It is also submitted by him that there is no reason as to why the Special Observer would single out the writ petitioners if they had not committed the malpractice of copying. There is no doubt that the petitioners had committed unfair means as defined in the Act of 1997. It is also submitted by him that there is no reason as to why the Special Observer would single out the writ petitioners if they had not committed the malpractice of copying. There is no doubt that the petitioners had committed unfair means as defined in the Act of 1997. Reliance is placed by him on Instruction No.10 in the Instructions given to the candidates to contend that the candidates were warned beforehand that carrying of any printed material and any electronic gadgets, such as cell phone etc. in any form to the examination hall is a serious offence carrying severe punishment. Accordingly, it is submitted by him that the order(s) of the learned single Judge are liable to be set aside. 22. On the other hand, Mr. C. Raghu and Mr. N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, submit that when, admittedly, the report of the Special Observer dated 07.11.2020, the papers seized from the petitioners, memos issued by the petitioners allegedly accepting their guilt, were not furnished to the petitioners, thereby violating the principles of natural justice, learned single Judge, in a matter of the present nature, ought not to have granted liberty of initiation of fresh proceedings as the authorities may now create evidence to substantiate their action. Placing reliance on Rule 3 of the Standing Orders of the Executive Council, it is submitted that even assuming that some papers were seized from the petitioners, there is not a whisper that such papers are relevant to the subject of the examinations and in absence thereof, it cannot be said that the writ petitioners had resorted to unfair means and had committed malpractice. Reliance is placed on a judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court at Hyderabad in the case of V. Amarnath v. Board of Intermediate Education, Hyderabad, reported in 2002 (3) ALD 191 , to contend that the learned single Judge, after setting aside the order imposing punishment, should not have permitted the authorities to initiate fresh proceedings. 23. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 24. It will be relevant to take note of the notice issued to the petitioners in the form of a Memo dated 12.11.2020. The same reads as follows: “Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, A.P., Vijayawada-8 F.No.2901/E1A/MP/MBBS/2020 Dated: 12.11.2020 Sub:- Dr. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 24. It will be relevant to take note of the notice issued to the petitioners in the form of a Memo dated 12.11.2020. The same reads as follows: “Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, A.P., Vijayawada-8 F.No.2901/E1A/MP/MBBS/2020 Dated: 12.11.2020 Sub:- Dr. NTR UHS – Exams – Second MBBS examinations held in November, 2020 – Malpractice cases reported against the following students of Katuri Medical College, Chinkondrupadu at clubbed center of Guntur Medical College, Guntur – Explanation called for – Regarding. Ref: Report of the Special Observer of Examinations dated 07-11-2020. ------- The Special Observer appointed during second MBBS theory examinations at clubbed center of Guntur Medical College, Guntur on 07-11-2020 found that the following students of Katuri Medical College, Chinakondrupadu are copying during Microbiology Paper – II examination in the examination hall with the help of using printed material. As such the Special Observer has reported malpractice case. The details of the students are given below: Sl. No. Hall Ticket No. Name of the Candidate 1. 0961059 Mogili Nagendra Babu 2. 17061013 Bhavanam Kranthi Kalyan Reddy 3. 17061053 Kamireddy Rishit 4. 17061069 Kovi Rakesh 5. 17061101 Nuthalapti Mohith Sai Umesh Chandra 6. 17061103 Paladugu Mytreeya 7. 17061124 Samanthapudi Lakshmi Tejaswi In this regard all the above students are hereby directed to explain as to why their appearance from the examination should not be cancelled and why they should not be debarred from appearing the examination and for prosecuting further studies for their misconduct. They should submit their explanations within 07 days from the date of receipt of this memo to the undersigned. If the candidates explanations does not reach this office on (or) before by the specified date the cases will be disposed off on the basis of material already available with this office. The candidates should acknowledge the receipt of this memo. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS” 25. The explanations furnished by the writ petitioners are as follows: “I Kovi Rakesh with Reg no:17061069 appeared for the 2nd MBBS exam at Guntur Medical College as the centre. I wrote my pathology exam and Microbiology 1st paper. The candidates should acknowledge the receipt of this memo. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS” 25. The explanations furnished by the writ petitioners are as follows: “I Kovi Rakesh with Reg no:17061069 appeared for the 2nd MBBS exam at Guntur Medical College as the centre. I wrote my pathology exam and Microbiology 1st paper. While writing my 2nd paper of microbiology, after 20 min the vice principal of Guntur medical college announces to give any slips having with the students and I found a slip adjacent to the table on the ground and I brought to the attention of invigilator. At this juncture vice principal took my paper and prevented me to write the exam. You can check my paper if I had copied from the slip. Sir I am victimized for the faulty decision. I plead you to kindly go through the matter and see that the exam is conducted again and my pathology exam which I have already written is taken into consideration. Sir this exam is my future sir. I lost my exam previously with just 1 mark and now this severe punishment will ruin my life along with this suffering of my parents. Please conduct exam and help me by doing justice.” (W.P.No.22670 of 2020) “I Paladugu Mytreeya of Katuri Medical College with Reg. No.17061103 appeared for the 2nd year MBBS supplementary examinations at Guntur Medical College. I was alleged for malpractice in Microbiology paper 2 exam which was not done by me. I was completely and thoroughly checked by staff before entering the exam hall and was confirmed that I was not carrying any printed or written material. As the exam is going on there is a sudden check up by the incharge principal of Guntur Medical College. She announced that to hand over any slips if carrying. There was a slip lying down apart from me which I brought into their attention by calling the near by attender. But the incharge principal misunderstood this and booked me into this issue. If you doubt me please verify my answer sheet. My answer sheet was forcefully ceased without my concern and they forced me to write the statement in their words and made me sign. I am victimized by this situation. So please look into this issue. The severe punishment as mentioned in the memo will ruin my life. So please help me by making justice. My answer sheet was forcefully ceased without my concern and they forced me to write the statement in their words and made me sign. I am victimized by this situation. So please look into this issue. The severe punishment as mentioned in the memo will ruin my life. So please help me by making justice. I request you to conduct a re-examination as I am losing my pathology exam which was already written and my pharmacology exam which was not allowed by the special observer. So, kindly allow me for the further exams.” (W.P.No.24325 of 2020) “I am Bhavanam Kranthi Kalyan Reddy, student of 3rd year MBBS in Katuri Medical College, Guntur. I appeared for the second year MBBS examinations conducted in November, 2020 with Hall ticket Regd. No.17061013 at Guntur Medical College, Guntur examination centre. On 07.11.2020 while I was appearing for the examination, the invigilator took away my hall ticket and alleged that I was involving in malpractices. Even after repeatedly requesting him for returning my hall ticket as I did not resort to any malpractice, I was sent out of the examination without even heading to my requests. With regard to the Memo issued to me vide F.No.2901/ E1A/MBBS/2020 dated 12.11.2020; I humbly submit that the show cause memo is bereft of any details about the alleged malpractice committed by me. It simply mentions that I was copying from some printed material. However, the memo does not disclose the type of alleged material was found, the alleged place from which it was recovered or the relevancy of the printed material to the examination which I was appearing. Further the report of Special Observer of the examinations dated 07.11.2020 on which the reliance is placed in the memo dated 12.11.2020 is not supplied to me. Again humbly submit that I did not resort to any malpractice and the action resorted by the Invigilator and the Special Observer are vindictive in nature and only to falsely implicate me. Therefore, I kindly request you to withdraw the Memo issued vide F.No.2901/E1A/MBBS/2020 dated 12.11.2020 against me and allow me to appear in the practical examinations which are going to commence from December, 2020.” (W.P.No.23530 of 2020) “My name is S.Lakshmi Tejaswi and I am studying 3 rd year MBBS at Katuri Medical College and my Regd. No.17061124. I was appearing for my 2 nd year supplementary exams at Guntur Medical College. No.17061124. I was appearing for my 2 nd year supplementary exams at Guntur Medical College. On 7.11.2020, while I was writing my microbiology exam paper 2 along with students of other colleges suddenly external observer came to my seat and found a small folded printed material near my table. The observer accused me of copying from that printed material. I pleaded with the observer many times and requested her to please check whatever material was found with my answer sheet. The observer insisted that if I was not copying, I will not have any problem and that I should sign the same. In that confusion and my naivety, I had to sign whatever observer asked me to. I was sure that my answer sheet will make things clear and I would be free of any malpractice accusation. Sir, with due respect I would like to affirm that I would never put the reputation of my college and my credibility at stake. I have always abided by the rules of the college. I am already heartbroken that I couldn’t complete my supplementary exams. I plead with you to give me a chance to prove my credibility and request you to save my future. I hope that you shall verify the facts and spare my from any punishment and restore my credibility.” (W.P.No.24328 of 2020) “I, Kamireddy Rishit Reg. No.17061053 appeared for 2nd paper of Microbiology exam, 2 nd year MBBS supplementary exam at Guntur Medical College on 7.11.2020. I entered into exam hall at right time after completely checked by concerned staff and was confirmed that I was not carrying any type of printed material by them. I did not move any where after taking my seat for my exam. While I’m writing my exam, some special observers came to me, showed some slips and by assuming that those belongs to me, they prevented me from writing all other exams also. The punishment mentioned in the memo will spoil my life. So please kindly help me and allow me to write next exams.” (W.P.No.24326 of 2020) “I am Nuthalapati Mohith Sai Umesh Chandra, student of 3rd year MBBS in Katuri Medical College, Guntur. I appeared for the second year MBBS examinations conducted in November, 2020 with Hall ticket Regd. No.17061101 at Guntur Medical College, Guntur examination centre. So please kindly help me and allow me to write next exams.” (W.P.No.24326 of 2020) “I am Nuthalapati Mohith Sai Umesh Chandra, student of 3rd year MBBS in Katuri Medical College, Guntur. I appeared for the second year MBBS examinations conducted in November, 2020 with Hall ticket Regd. No.17061101 at Guntur Medical College, Guntur examination centre. One month prior to the said examinations I got tested positive for COVID-19 and I did not recover by the time of examinations. I have appeared to the second year MBBS examinations with the symptoms by taking proper care, hygiene and safety measures. On 07.11.2020 while I was appearing for the examination, the invigilator took away my hall ticket and alleged that I was involving in malpractices. Even after repeatedly requesting him for returning my hall ticket as I did not resort to any malpractice, I was sent out of the examination without even heading to my requests. With regard to the Memo issued to me vide F.No.2901/E1A/MBBS/2020 dated 12.11.2020; I humbly submit that the show cause memo is bereft of any details about the alleged malpractice committed by me. It simply mentions that I was copying from some printed material. However, the memo does not disclose the type of alleged material was found, the alleged place from which it was recovered or the relevancy of the printed material to the examination which I was appearing. Further the report of Special Observer of the examinations dated 07.11.2020 on which the reliance is placed in the memo dated 12.11.2020 is not supplied to me. Again humbly submit that I did not resort to any malpractice and the action resorted by the Invigilator and the Special Observer are vindictive in nature and only to falsely implicate me. Therefore, I kindly request you to withdraw the Memo issued vide F.No.2901/E1A/MBBS/2020 dated 12.11.2020 against me and allow me to appear in the practical examinations which are going to commence from December, 2020.” (W.P.No.23011 of 2020) 26. The letters given by the writ petitioners to the Special Observer, admitting guilt, are as follows: “I, Rakesh, attending supplementary exam at Guntur Medical College. Hall Ticket No.17061069. I was attempted malpractice in the exam and caught. I voluntarily submitted the ones to them. Yours Faithfully, K. Rakesh Mobile – 9494676761. (W.P.No.22670 of 2020) “Respected Madam, I, P Mytreeya of Reg. No.17061103 brought some papers related to the examination by mistake. Hall Ticket No.17061069. I was attempted malpractice in the exam and caught. I voluntarily submitted the ones to them. Yours Faithfully, K. Rakesh Mobile – 9494676761. (W.P.No.22670 of 2020) “Respected Madam, I, P Mytreeya of Reg. No.17061103 brought some papers related to the examination by mistake. I feel sorry for my mistake and negligence. I will never repeat such an activity again. Please consider me for this time and kindly forgive me Yours obediently, Sd/- P Mytreeya, 17061103 - Contact No. 701320102”. (W.P.No.24325 of 2020) “Sir/Madam, I, B. Kranthi Kalyan Reddy, 17061013 writing supplementary exam in Guntur Medical College voluntarily submitted a printed material that I had to the squad that has come to the exam hall. Sir I apologize for such kind of behavior from me. I promise that I will not repeat again in future. Please forgive me for such kind of behavior. Yours sincerely, Sd/- B Kranthi Kalyan Reddy, Mobile No.7730878898” (W.P.No.23530 of 2020) “Respected Madam, I, S Lakshmi Tejaswi, came to Guntur Medical College to write exam supplementary exams and was caught for malpractice. I am ashamed of my act and would never repeat it ever again. Please excuse me for this time. Yours sincerely, Sd/-S Lakshmi Tejaswi, Contact No.9866727989 - 17061124”. (W.P.No.24328 of 2020) “Respected Madam, I, Kamireddy Rishit, Reg.No.17061053 came Guntur Medical college to write supplementary exams and was caught for my mal practice. I apologize for my mistake and promise that this will never happen. Yours sincerely, Sd/- K Rishit, Mobile No.863969632”. (W.P.No.24326 of 2020) “Madam, I, N.Umesh, 17061101 was carrying a slip and got caught while exchanging. Due to Covid, I have done it and I am extremely sorry for doing such kind of malpractice. I promise that I will never repeat it again and kindly requesting for apologies. Yours obediently, Sd/- Umesh, Hall Ticket No.17061101, Mobile No.8919945418”. (W.P.No.23011 of 2020) 27. It is also appropriate to take note of the proceedings dated 24.11.2020 in respect of one of the petitioners as, fundamentally, all proceedings dated 24.11.2020, are same, save and except particulars relating to the specific student concerned. It reads as follows: “Mr. Kovi Rakesh, Regd.No.17061069, Katuri Medical College, Chinakondrupadu has appeared for II MBBS examinations held in November 2020 During the above examination while writing Microbiology Paper-II examination on 07.11.2020 Mr. Kovi Rakesh, was caught possessing of printed material by the Spl. Observer appointed by the Dr. It reads as follows: “Mr. Kovi Rakesh, Regd.No.17061069, Katuri Medical College, Chinakondrupadu has appeared for II MBBS examinations held in November 2020 During the above examination while writing Microbiology Paper-II examination on 07.11.2020 Mr. Kovi Rakesh, was caught possessing of printed material by the Spl. Observer appointed by the Dr. NTR UHS, Vijayawada The Chief Supdt/Spl. Observer immediately seized the Hall-Ticket and forbidden material and did not allow the above student to continue the examination and sent a report to the Dr. NTR UHS, Vijayawada. Mr. Kovi Rakesh, Regd.No. 17061069, was directed to explain as to why his appearance from the examination should not be cancelled and why he should not be debarred from appearing the examination conducted by the University and for prosecuting further studies for his misconduct vide this office memo No.2901/E1A/MBBS/MP/2020, dated 12.11.2020. In response to this, he has submitted his explanation vide letter dated 18.11.2020. The case was placed before Malpractice Committee of Dr. NTR UHS, Vijayawada, which met on 24-11-2020, after considering Special Observer report, explanation of the candidate and material seized from the student, the committee came to the conclusion that Mr. Kovi Rakesh, Regd.No.17061069 was found guilty for possessing forbidden material into the examination hall. The Hon’ble Vice-Chancellor, Dr. NTR UHS, Vijayawada after taking into account the report of the Chief Superintendent and Special Observer, explanation of the student and the recommendations of the Malpractice Committee has come to the conclusion that ends of justice would be met by awarding the punishment of disqualifying Mr. Kovi Rakesh, Regd.No.17061069 for a period of one year including November, 2020 examination. Accordingly the above punishment is hereby imposed.” 28. The word ‘Unfair means’ is defined in Section 2(f) of the Act of 1997, which reads as follows: “’Unfair means' in relation to an examinee appearing in a public examination means the unauthorised help from any person in any manner or from any material written, recorded, printed or reproduced in any form whatsoever or the unauthorised use of any telephonic, wireless or electronic or other instrument or gadget in any manner.” 29. In terms of the said definition, amongst others, receiving of unauthorized help from any material, written or printed or reproduced in any form, would come within the meaning of using unfair means. 30. In terms of the said definition, amongst others, receiving of unauthorized help from any material, written or printed or reproduced in any form, would come within the meaning of using unfair means. 30. Rule 3 of the Standing Orders of the Executive Council, dealing with punishment for use of unfair means, reads as follows: “If during a university examination, a candidate is found in mala fide possession of any material such as, (a) papers, books or notes or (b) Written notes on any part of the clothes worn by the candidate or on any part of his body, or table or desk; or (c) Foot-rule and for instruments like set squares, protractors, slide rules, etc., with notes written on them; which is relevant to the subject of the examinations, he shall be disqualified from appearing in any University examination for one year including that in which he is found guilty.” 31. Thus, if a candidate is found in mala fide possession of any material as indicated in the Rules, which is relevant to the subject examination, he shall be disqualified from appearing in any of the University examination for one year including that in which the candidate is found guilty. 32. The reasoning of the learned single Judge for the conclusion is found in paragraph 14 in W.P.Nos.22670, 24325, 23530, 24328 and 24326 of 2020 and paragraph 15 in W.P.No.23011 of 2020. The reasoning in W.P.Nos.24325, 23530, 24328, 24326 and 23011 of 2020 is same. Therefore, it will be relevant to reproduce paragraph 14 of W.P.No.22670 of 2020 and paragraph 14 of W.P.No.24325 of 2020: “14. As seen from the said explanation, petitioner found a slip adjacent to the table on the ground and brought it to the notice of the invigilator. In the impugned order, even though explanation filed by the petitioner is referred to, it does not deal with the same and it does not also say that printed material which was allegedly seized from the petitioner, by the Special Observer was relevant to the subject examination. Copy of the printed material that was allegedly seized from the petitioner was not supplied to the petitioner, to prove that it was relevant to the subject examination. Copy of the report of the Special Observer ought to have been supplied to the petitioner along with notice to give an effective representation.” ( W.P.No.22670 of 2020) “14. Copy of the printed material that was allegedly seized from the petitioner was not supplied to the petitioner, to prove that it was relevant to the subject examination. Copy of the report of the Special Observer ought to have been supplied to the petitioner along with notice to give an effective representation.” ( W.P.No.22670 of 2020) “14. In the impugned order, even though explanation filed by the petitioner is referred to, it does not deal with the same and it does not also say that printed material which was allegedly seized from the petitioner, by the Special Observer was relevant to the subject examination. Copy of the printed material that was allegedly seized from the petitioner was not supplied to the petitioner, to prove that it was relevant to the subject examination. Copy of the report of the Special Observer ought to have been supplied to the petitioner along with notice to give an effective representation.” (W.P.No.24325 of 2020) 33. The fact that printed material which was allegedly seized from the writ petitioners and the report of the Special Observer were not supplied to the writ petitioners is an admitted fact. The proceedings dated 24.11.2020 refers to possession of forbidden material by the writ petitioners. To disqualify a student from appearing in any University examination, as per Rule 3 of the Standing Orders of the Executive Council of the University, possession of any material such as papers, books, notes etc., have to be relevant to the subject of the examination. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the University that in the face of the admission of guilt by the writ petitioners, learned single Judge ought to have dismissed the writ petitions, cannot be accepted for the reason that if the admission of guilt was itself sufficient, then there would have been no necessity to issue a show-cause notice to the writ petitioners to furnish explanation. The report of the Special Observer and the material seized from the writ petitioners form the foundation of the allegation that the writ petitioners had committed malpractice and the same having not been furnished, the writ petitioners did not have the opportunity to meet the foundation of the allegations. The report of the Special Observer and the material seized from the writ petitioners form the foundation of the allegation that the writ petitioners had committed malpractice and the same having not been furnished, the writ petitioners did not have the opportunity to meet the foundation of the allegations. We are also of the considered opinion that the argument of the learned counsel for the writ petitioners that the writ petitions ought to have been allowed without giving liberty to the University to issue fresh show-cause notice, is without any merit. The fact that the writ petitioners had in some form or the other acknowledged committing of malpractice would be evident from the letters given to the Special Observer, which are reproduced in paragraph 26 of the judgment. In the show-cause notice in the form of memo dated 12.11.2020, no explanation was called for with regard to the aforesaid aspect. In such circumstances, we are unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioners that the course adopted by the learned single Judge cannot be sustained in law. The apprehension expressed that the University may resort to manipulation of materials does not commend for our acceptance. We are of the considered view that the learned single Judge had balanced the competing equities and we see no good ground to interfere with the judgment(s) dated 17.02.2021 passed in the writ petitions. 34. In Amarnath (supra), the Court held that the appellant was a victim of circumstances. He behaved like a disciplined boy when he found some papers lying on the floor. He brought the same to the notice of the Invigilator, who, in turn, brought it to the notice of the Superintendent. The Superintendent stated that the squad member, in spite of protest by the student and the invigilator, insisted that the student had committed malpractice and though initially he had refused to refer the case to the Malpractice Committee, on being pressurized by the squad member, he had to ultimately refer the case. The Court had also taken note of the submission of the Government Pleader appearing for the Board that if the results of the appellant were published, he would have topped the list of the successful candidates in the entire State. Thus, the facts of Amarnath (supra) are entirely different from the facts of the present batch of writ petitions. 35. The Court had also taken note of the submission of the Government Pleader appearing for the Board that if the results of the appellant were published, he would have topped the list of the successful candidates in the entire State. Thus, the facts of Amarnath (supra) are entirely different from the facts of the present batch of writ petitions. 35. Though the orders of punishment were set aside by the learned single Judge, when the petitioners prayed for permission to pay examination fee and to appear for the 2nd year examinations scheduled to be commenced from 15.03.2021, prayers of the petitioners were rejected on the ground that there was no specific direction in the orders passed by the learned single Judge. 36. In the writ appeals preferred by the writ petitioners, on different dates, various interim orders were passed the writ permitting petitioners to appear in the said examination providing that result of such examination shall not be declared and the same shall abide by the outcome of the appeals. It was also made clear that the petitioners shall not be entitled to any equities. 37. Since as of date, there is no order imposing punishment for any misconduct, we direct that the result of the examinations taken by the petitioners pursuant to the orders passed in the appeals shall be declared. If pursuant to the liberty granted by the learned single Judge, further proceedings are taken by the University in the light of the directions contained in the orders of the learned single Judge and if it is established that the writ petitioners had committed malpractice, the University may pass appropriate orders imposing punishment in accordance with law. 38. In view of the above discussions, we find no merit in the appeals filed by the University as well as by the writ petitioners. 39. Resultantly, the writ appeals are dismissed with the observations and directions as indicated above. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.