JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel representing the State-respondents and Dr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel representing the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 2. This intra-court appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 28.07.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-C No.122 of 2022, whereby the said writ petition filed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 has been allowed and the order challenged therein, dated 22.12.2021 whereby the College in question was debarred from becoming the examination center for the period of six years, has been quashed. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition filed by the College has not appropriately construed to the provisions contained in the Statute 10.04 of the First Statutes of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Avadh University, Faizabad and as such the judgment and order under appeal is not sustainable. It has further been argued that the matter relating to mass copying, as was alleged against the College, was considered firstly by a Sub-Committee and thereafter by the Examination Committee and finally by the Executive Council of the University and hence the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that there is no specific provision either in the U.P. State Universities Act or in the First Statutes framed by the University to debar a college from acting as examination center, erroneous. It has further been stated on behalf of the appellants that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the decision of the University debarring the College from acting as examination center is without any statutory backing is also erroneous in view of the provisions contained in Section 21 of the U.P. State Universities Act, read with Statute 10.04 of the First Statutes of the University concerned. 4. On the other hand, Dr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel representing the College, while supporting the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge which is under appeal herein, has argued that as a matter of fact the University authorities did not have any jurisdiction or power to debar the College from acting as examination center in view of the provisions contained in Government Order dated 03.01.2020. It has further been argued by him that there has been no complaint, whatsoever, against the College and that it has all along been functioning as an examination center without any complaint from any corner. Dr. Singh has also argued that the entire action which ultimately resulted in debarring the College from functioning as an examination center has precipitated on account of malafide on behalf of the University authorities for the reason that in a certain matter the contempt proceedings were instituted by the College against the University authorities. Drawing our attention to Clause 11 of the Government Order dated 03.01.2020, it has been argued by Dr. Singh that only those colleges shall not be assigned to act as an examination center where some report by the officers regarding mass copying has been sent which has necessitated re-examination of the students and where the Examination Committee of the Government has taken a decision to debar. Thus, the submission is that it is the State Government which possesses the authority to pass an order of debarring in terms of the Government Order dated 03.01.2020 and not the University authorities including the Examination Committee. Submission is, thus, that the Special Appeal is liable to be dismissed at its threshold. 5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel representing the respective parties and have also perused the record available before us on this Special Appeal. 6. The College, in question, namely, Maa Tilsera Devi P.G. College, Bhasra, Post Office Tanda, District Ambedkar Nagar is a College affiliated to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Avadh University and is imparting education upto the Post Graduation level. On 13.08.2021 examination of B.A. III students of Home Science Paper II was being held and the University authorities came to know certain irregularities relating to alleged mass copying indulged in by the students and accordingly a Press Release appears to have been issued by the University on 24.09.2021 whereby it was pronounced that the College has been debarred from functioning as an examination center. The said Press Note dated 24.09.2021 became the subject matter of challenge before this Court in Writ Petition No.26879(MS) of 2021 instituted by the College. The Writ Petition was allowed and the Press Release which was challenged in the said writ petition was quashed. The said Press Note dated 24.09.2021 became the subject matter of challenge before this Court in Writ Petition No.26879(MS) of 2021 instituted by the College. The Writ Petition was allowed and the Press Release which was challenged in the said writ petition was quashed. The University authorities were directed to issued a show cause notice and after giving opportunity of hearing to the College, pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 7. Pursuant to the said order dated 23.11.2021 passed by this Court, the Examination Controller constituted a Sub-Committee on 30.11.2021 comprised of 5 members which was chaired by the Professor Rajiv Gaur, Head of the Department of Microbiology in the University. The said Sub-Committee was given instructions to give opportunity of hearing to the College and submit its report. 8. The meeting of the Sub-Committee was convened to be held on 06.12.2021 and a notice to the said effect was also issued by the Examination Controller on 31.11.2021. The College, in question, was also issued a show cause notice on 30.11.2021 whereby the College was required to appear before the Sub-Committee as constituted above and submit its reply in writing as well as orally in the matter relating to mass copying reported in the College concerned. 9. Pursuant to the said notice, the meeting of Sub-Committee was held on 06.12.2021 wherein apart from the members of the Sub-Committee constituted by the Examination Controller on 30.11.2021, the Principal of the College was also present who appended his signature on the attendance sheet after stating therein that apart from written submission made on behalf of the College, he does not have anything to state either in writing or orally. The written explanation submitted by the Principal of the College to the show cause notice, dated 06.12.2021 is also on record at page 59 of the Special Appeal whereby the Principal of the College apologized for the mistakes found and he further stated that College may be pardoned. In the reply, it was further stated that the allegation relating to use of unfair means on the students may also be cancelled and accordingly result of the students may be declared. 10. In the reply, it was further stated that the allegation relating to use of unfair means on the students may also be cancelled and accordingly result of the students may be declared. 10. Thus, from a perusal of the reply given by the College through its Principal before the Sub-Committee in its meeting held on 06.12.2021, it is more than clear that the allegation relating to mass copying on the examination date, namely, on 13.08.2021 was rather admitted by the College and it is on the basis of such admission that the College requested the Sub-Committee members to pardon the College and after clearing the matter relating to use of unfair means by the students, to declare their result. The Sub-Committee accordingly made a recommendation by means of minutes of the meeting held on 06.12.2021 and clearly found that in the College in question there has been mass copying in the Home Science Paper II of B.A. Part III examination held in the main examination, 2021. The Committee also opined that such mass copying is against the academic environment of the University and that such situation may be remedial so that same may not have any adverse impact on the future of the meritorious students of the University. 11. When we peruse the minutes of the meeting of the Sub-Committee, dated 06.12.2021, what we find is that the Committee had not made the aforesaid recommendations only on the basis of admission of the irregularities which occurred on the date of examination i.e. on 13.08.2021 by the College but the Committee members also examined the answer books of the students and found that the seriatim of the answers written by the students is the same in all the answer books and the only difference is that the spellings of certain words used by the students appear to be at variance. The Committee, however, also found that the students by using wrongly spelt words have attempted to convey the same meaning in their respective answers. 12. Accordingly, it is clear that the Committee’s finding about indulgence in mass copying is not based solely on the admission of the College; rather it is also based on the scrutiny of the material available before the Committee objectively. 13. 12. Accordingly, it is clear that the Committee’s finding about indulgence in mass copying is not based solely on the admission of the College; rather it is also based on the scrutiny of the material available before the Committee objectively. 13. The recommendations of the said Sub-Committee, dated 06.12.2021 were placed before the Examination Committee which a statutory body created under Section 29 of the U.P. State Universities Act. The said Examination Committee in its meeting held on 13.12.2021 considered the recommendations made by the Sub-Committee and accordingly took a decision to debar the College in the light of the report available before it, for a period of 6 years. The decision of the Examination Committee was placed before the Executive Council of the University which is the apex decision making body of the University in terms of the provisions contained in Section 21 of the U.P. State Universities Act. The Executive Council considered the entire matter in its meeting held on 19.12.2021 and approved the decision taken by the Examination Committee for debarring the College in question. 14. In the light of the aforesaid facts and the legal position, when we examine the judgment under appeal before us passed by the learned Single Judge, what we find is that primarily the learned Single Judge has given two reasons for quashing the decision of the University debarring the College in question. The first reason given by the learned Single Judge is that the impugned decision lacks statutory frame work conferring any authority or power upon the University authorities under the U.P. State Universities Act or the First Statutes made thereunder to debar a College from functioning as an Examination Center. The second reason indicated by the learned Single Judge is that the show cause notice which preceded the decision of the University which was challenged in the writ petition did not make clear as to for what purpose the show cause notice was given, that is to say it did not make any mention of intended action against the College. 15. So far as the first reason given by the learned Single Judge for allowing the writ petition is concerned, we may first refer to the provisions of Section 29 of the U.P. State Universities Act. 15. So far as the first reason given by the learned Single Judge for allowing the writ petition is concerned, we may first refer to the provisions of Section 29 of the U.P. State Universities Act. Section 29 provides that there shall be an Examination Committee in the University, the constitution of which shall be as may be provided for in the Ordinances. Sub-section (2) of Section 29 provides that the Examination Committee shall supervise generally all examinations of the University and will have certain functions mentioned therein. Sub-section (3) of Section 29 empowers the Examination Committee to appoint sub-committees and further to delegate one or more persons or sub-committees the power to deal with and decide cases relating to use of unfair means by the examinee. Sub-section (4) of Section 29 empowers the Examination Committee or the Sub-committee to debar an examinee from future examinations of the College under certain conditions. 16. Quoting Sub-section (3) of Section 29, learned Single Judge has observed in the judgment and order under appeal that the said provision only empowers the Examination Committee to take decision relating to use of unfair means by the examinee. Learned Single Judge has also referred to Statute 10.04 of the First Statutes and has observed that under the said provision, the Examination Committee is empowered only to make any place a center of written examination and has thus observed that neither the Statute 10.04 nor Section 29 empowers the Examination Committee to take any decision in relation to debarment of College to function as examination center. 17. When we examine Section 29 of the Act, what we find is that the Examination Committee is a statutory Committee which is to be constituted in accordance with the Ordinances. Subsection (2) of Section 29 is relevant to be referred at this juncture. It provides that Examination Committee shall supervise generally all examinations of the University. It further provides that it shall supervise all the examinations including moderation, tabulation and perform other functions : 18. Section 29 of the State Universities Act is quoted as under : “29. Examinations Committee. -(1) There shall be an Examinations Committee in the University, the constitution of which shall be as may be provided for in the Ordinances. It further provides that it shall supervise all the examinations including moderation, tabulation and perform other functions : 18. Section 29 of the State Universities Act is quoted as under : “29. Examinations Committee. -(1) There shall be an Examinations Committee in the University, the constitution of which shall be as may be provided for in the Ordinances. (2) Except as provided in sub-section (2) of Section 42, the Committee shall supervise generally all examinations of the University, including moderation and tabulation, and perform the following other functions, namely : (a) to appoint examiners and moderators and if necessary, to remove them; (b) to review from time to time the results of University examinations and submission of reports thereon to the Academic Council; (c) to make recommendations to the Academic Council for the improvement of the examination system; (d) to scrutinise the list of examiners proposed by the Board of Studies, finalise the same and declare the result of the University. (3) The Examinations Committee may appoint such number of sub-committees as it thinks fit, and in particular may delegate to any one or more persons or sub-committees the power to deal with and decided cases relating to the use of unfair means by the examinees. [(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, it shall be lawful for an Examinations Committee or, as the case may be, for a sub-committee or any person to whom the Examinations Committee has delegated its power in this behalf under subsection (3), to debar an examinee from future examinations of the University, if in its or his opinion, such examinee is guilty of using unfair means at any such examination.] 19. In our considered opinion, the occurrence of word ‘generally’ in Sub-section (2) of Section 29 empowers the Examination Committee to take all possible actions and steps which are necessary and required for supervising all examinations of the University. The affiliated colleges impart education and they are affiliated to the privileges of the University which gives such Colleges a right to make their students appear in the examinations to be conducted by the University and it is only once the students are declared passed in the examinations conducted by the University that they are conferred with Degrees. The affiliated colleges impart education and they are affiliated to the privileges of the University which gives such Colleges a right to make their students appear in the examinations to be conducted by the University and it is only once the students are declared passed in the examinations conducted by the University that they are conferred with Degrees. Accordingly for conferment of the Degree since it is incumbent on the students studying in the affiliated Colleges to have passed the examination, it becomes solemn duty of the University to ensure that examinations are conducted in the most fair manner, otherwise, in case the University fails to conduct its examinations in a fair manner, degrees being conferred on the students will loose their sanctity academically and even otherwise. 20. The functions assigned to the Examination Committee in Sub-clauses (a) to (d) of Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Act cannot thus be held to be exhaustive. Similarly the functions such as moderation and tabulation occurring in Sub-section (2) are also not exhaustive for the reason of occurrence of word ‘generally’ in the said provision. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the clear opinion that setting up of an examination center for ensuring that examinations are held properly and in the most fair manner and ensuring fairness in the examinations at the examination centers are not only the statutory duties cast upon the Examination Committee under Section 29; rather the said provision empowers the Examination Committee to take all such steps which shall ensure fair examinations. In a situation where mass copying by the students at the examination center is reported and it is even admitted by none other than the Principal of the College himself, debarring such College from functioning as an examination center for future examinations becomes the statutory duty cast on the Examination Committee under Section 29 of the U.P. State Universities Act. 22. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the opinion that it not only that the Examination Committee is statutorily empowered to take such action as debarring the College from functioning as Examination Center under Section 29 but taking such action in such a situation becomes its statutory duty as well. 23. Apart from the above, we may also refer to the provisions contained in Section 21 of the U.P. State Universities Act. 23. Apart from the above, we may also refer to the provisions contained in Section 21 of the U.P. State Universities Act. Section 21 defines the powers and duties of the Executive Council. The opening phrase in Section 21 says that the Executive Council shall be the principal executive body of the University. It further says that Executive Council shall have certain powers mentioned in the said provision subject to the provisions of the Act. One of the powers listed in Section 21(1) is “to regulate and determine all other matters concerning the University as well as Institutes, constituent, affiliated and associated colleges in accordance with this Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances”. Thus, Sub-clause (xvii) of Section 21(1) gives ample and all encompassing powers to the Executive Council not only to regulate but to determine as well all other matters concerning the Institutes including affiliated and associated colleges etc. Conduct of examination, as observed above, by the University is a solemn act and not only solemnity but also the fairness has to be maintained by all measures by the University for the purpose of saving the University’s reputation as body imparting education and conferring degrees only to deserving students. 24. In the instant case, the decision taken by the Examination Committee was discussed and accordingly approved by the Executive Council in its meeting held on 19.12.2021 which, in our considered opinion, has the necessary statutory authority to take such decision in terms of the provisions contained in Section 21(1) (xvii) of the U.P. State Universities Act. 25. For the aforesaid reasons, we find ourselves unable to agree with the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the judgment and order under appeal herein that the decision of the University authorities to debar the College in question from functioning as an examination center is not backed by statutory authority. 26. 25. For the aforesaid reasons, we find ourselves unable to agree with the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the judgment and order under appeal herein that the decision of the University authorities to debar the College in question from functioning as an examination center is not backed by statutory authority. 26. So far as the other reason indicated by the learned Single Judge that the show cause notice did not indicate the intended action of the University against the College, is concerned, we may only observe that in the earlier round of the litigation, this Court has already noticed that the College was debarred and accordingly Press Release was quashed by means of judgment and order dated 23.11.2021 with the direction to the University authorities to issue a show cause notice and give opportunity to the College and then pass fresh order. Even otherwise, if we examine the show cause notice dated 30.11.2021, what we find is that the Examination Controller has intimated the College, of the constitution of the Committee and has also required the College to be present for personal hearing in the matter relating to mass copying. Merely because the intended action was not indicated in so many specific words, in our considered opinion, in this particular case where the sanctity of the university examinations was at stake, it will not vitiate the proceedings drawn consequent upon the show cause notice dated 30.11.2021. Thus, in this respect as well we are not able to find ourselves in agreement with the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. 27. So far as the allegation of malafide etc. is concerned, once the principal of the College appeared before the Committee and clearly submitted that College has nothing to say orally except what has been stated in the written reply, we do not find any force in such a submission of learned counsel for the College. The reason for our not accepting the submission is that the Principal of the College has neither orally nor in the written reply, dated 06.12.2021 has anywhere taken the plea of malafide and malice against the University authorities and accordingly, in absence of any plea taken by the College in the said reply, such submission cannot be accepted. 28. The reason for our not accepting the submission is that the Principal of the College has neither orally nor in the written reply, dated 06.12.2021 has anywhere taken the plea of malafide and malice against the University authorities and accordingly, in absence of any plea taken by the College in the said reply, such submission cannot be accepted. 28. At this juncture, learned counsel representing the College has stated that as a matter of fact, the endorsement said to have made by the Principal of the College on the attendance sheet, dated 06.12.2021 was made for the reason that the Committee members had applied undue influence and compelled the Principal of the College to give something in writing as they wanted to subside and resolve the matter. 29. We are afraid, we cannot agree with the said submission as well, for the simple reason that there is nothing on record which can even remotely indicate that the Principal of the College after allegedly being coerced or influenced in the meeting held on 06.12.2021 reported such coercion to any authority either in the State Government authority or in the University. For the said reason, the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents is rejected. 30. Learned counsel representing the College has also relied upon Clause 11 of the Government Order dated 03.01.2020. In respect to the said submission, we are of the considered opinion that any Government Order issued by the State Government has to be read only in addition to the statutory authority or power vested in the authorities of the University and not in derogation of the said powers and authority available to the University under the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. 31. For the reasons given and the discussions made above, we conclude that the judgment and order dated 28.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge is erroneous and hence is not sustainable. 32. Resultantly, the Special Appeal is allowed and judgment and order dated 28.07.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside. The Writ Petition, namely, Writ-C No. 122 of 2022, thus, stands dismissed. 33. There will be no order as to costs.