JUDGMENT 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 17 th January, 2019 passed by the respondent-University. The petitioner has also made prayer of maintaining her result of BAMS 2nd Year Examination, which was earlier declined as per mark-sheet dated 22nd March, 2018. 2. The present petition is a second round of litigation. The petitioner was admitted in BAMS Course in November, 2015. The petitioner is said to have passed her BAMS First Year Examination in the month of May - June, 2017. 3. The petitioner appeared in BAMS 2nd Year Examination in November-December 2017, wherein, she was declared pass and mark-sheet dated 22nd March, 2018 was issued to the petitioner. 4. The petitioner has pleaded that classes of 3rd Year BAMS Course started in December, 2017 itself and she was informed, vide communication dated 01st September, 2018, that result of the petitioner of 2nd Year has been cancelled on the recommendation of a Committee constituted for the purpose of irregularities committed during the examination by using unfair means. 5. The petitioner earlier filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20719/2018 before this Court and the Court vide interim order dated 15th November, 2018 permitted the petitioner to write her BAMS Examination for 3rd year. 6. The petitioner has pleaded that this Court on 19 th December, 2018 allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner as the impugned order was passed, in violation of principles of natural justice and as such, order dated 01.09.2018 was set aside. The Court granted liberty to the respondents to pass fresh order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 7. The petitioner submitted her representation and the respondent-University asked the petitioner to appear in person. The petitioner has alleged that when she attended the Office of non-petitioner No.1, she was not apprised of specific charge against her and she was asked to pick up her copies from the bundles of copies and she had picked the same four copies, which she had earlier picked. 8. The petitioner has alleged that she was not shown her remaining two copies in spite of request on the basis of which her earlier result was cancelled, alleging that the copies were changed and the answers were in the handwriting of different students. 9. 8. The petitioner has alleged that she was not shown her remaining two copies in spite of request on the basis of which her earlier result was cancelled, alleging that the copies were changed and the answers were in the handwriting of different students. 9. The petitioner has submitted that initially the respondent No.2-College served copy of order dated 17 th January, 2019 informing the petitioner that the earlier decision has been maintained. The petitioner has pleaded that there was another order of the same date i.e. 17 th January, 2019 and same was available on 'WhatsApp message' of some of the students. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by order dated 17th January, 2019 has filed present writ petition. 10. Mr. Akhil Simlote, learned counsel for the petitioner has made following submissions before this Court :- (i) The respondent-University has given discriminatory treatment to the petitioner in respect of punishment awarded to the petitioner as other similarly situated persons have been given benefit of Bonus marks while the entire II Year BAMS examination of the petitioner, has been cancelled. (ii) The respondent-University did not conduct the proper enquiry of holding the petitioner guilty and only on the basis of some report being submitted by the Committee constituted by the respondent-University, the petitioner has been punished only by holding her prima facie guilty. (iii) The respondent-University was required to treat the petitioner in the same manner, as they have treated the other candidates as the similarly situated students, found guilty of using unfair means, have been permitted to pursue the Course and no action has been taken against them. (iv) The finding of Committee, so constituted, by the respondent-University is on the basis of change of pin of copies/ answer sheets and in absence of any specific allegation against the petitioner of changing the pin, such finding could not have been recorded. (v) The very basis of levelling allegation of changing the pin is baseless as pins cannot be changed by a student, as after completion of examination, copies were collected by the Invigilators and sent to the respondent-University. (vi) The Ordinance No.55 referred by the respondent- University is not applicable in the present facts of the case, as the said provision applies only in the contingency arising out of loss or misplacement of one or more written answer books before their evaluation beyond reasonable hope of retrieval. (vi) The Ordinance No.55 referred by the respondent- University is not applicable in the present facts of the case, as the said provision applies only in the contingency arising out of loss or misplacement of one or more written answer books before their evaluation beyond reasonable hope of retrieval. Since the result in this case was declared and answer sheets evaluated, the loss or misplacement could not be committed by a student. 11. Mr.Yuvraj Samant, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University has filed reply to the writ petition. 12. The respondent-University submitted that after examination was conducted at various centres in November- December, 2017, certain complaints were received from the students/ applicants alleging therein that the copies of the students were exchanged and such candidates were expecting higher marks than the original result declared by the respondent- University. 13. The respondent-University sent some of the copies of the students, at Forensic Lab, who appeared at Gurukul Polytechnic College, Chomu and negative report was received from Forensic Lab and as such, the respondent-University took the exercise of checking of the copies of the students of all the Examination Centres. 14. The respondent-University has pleaded that since the matter related to using of unfair means/ conspiracy/ cheating, a Committee was formed as per University's Ordnance Rule 24 and as per the said Ordinance, the students were called to appear before the Committee and were asked to select/identify/ check their copies and match them with their handwriting. 15. The respondent-University has pleaded that the Committee after completing the said exercise and conducting various inquiries, was of the opinion that 27 students of First Year and 12 students of Second Year had fraudulently exchanged their answer sheets and/or had used other unfair means like answers written by other students, whose handwriting were mismatched/ different from their original handwriting. 16. The respondent-University has pleaded that in the case of the present petitioner, she was called to identify her copies and she identified four copies out of which three copies rightly belonged to her but the fourth copy, which she identified as her's, in fact, belonged to Roll No.382, while her Roll number was 407. 17. The respondent-University has pleaded that in the situation of exchange of copies by using unfair means, the Committee was constituted and submitted its report on 02 nd August, 2018, which has been placed as Annexure-4 with the reply. 18. 17. The respondent-University has pleaded that in the situation of exchange of copies by using unfair means, the Committee was constituted and submitted its report on 02 nd August, 2018, which has been placed as Annexure-4 with the reply. 18. The respondent-University is said to have constituted a second committee called 'Grievance Committee' and it had further examined the report of Inspection Committee and sorted out the different cases, which were not disputed by the Inspection Committee and awarded the marks to such candidates accordingly. 19. The respondent-University has pleaded that the Grievance Committee, after examining the entire facts and circumstances and taking a lenient view, came to the conclusion that in re-examination, 27 candidates of First Year and 12 candidates of the Second Year, were found using unfair means/ cheating/ conspiracy/ fraud in form of exchanging of the copies and using other candidates to write their answers and also identifying wrong answer sheets and as such, recommended to delist the Gurukul Polytechnic College, Chomu as Center for future examination. 20. The respondent-University has pleaded that as per Ordinance of the University, a much strict and harsh punishment could have been awarded to the students including the petitioner but the Committee considering the future career of the students took a decision to re-conduct the examination and was further lenient to give all the benefits of examination like re-evaluation and back, etc. The respondent-University has also pleaded that six other students having the same cause of action had filed Writ Petition at Principal Seat, Jodhpur and initially interim relief was not granted by the Single Bench. The order was put to challenge before the Division Bench and as such, request was made on behalf of the petitioner to withdraw Special Appeal (Writ) and same was dismissed as withdrawn. 21. The respondent-University has pleaded that after order was passed by this Court in the first round of litigation, the petitioner had again appeared before the Committee and she was again asked to identify her copies and she identified four copies and it is denied that she was not shown all her copies but she was not able to identify her copies, as the same had been written by some other persons or some other fraudulent means had been used. The Committee was of the firm opinion that the earlier order was legal, just and proper order and as such, no interference was made by the Committee constituted by the respondent-University. 22. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and has also gone through the entire record. 23. The Committee was of the firm opinion that the earlier order was legal, just and proper order and as such, no interference was made by the Committee constituted by the respondent-University. 22. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and has also gone through the entire record. 23. The finding of the Committee in its report in respect of petitioner and other candidates is quoted as hereunder:- ÁFke n`"V;k nks"kh ik;s x;s Nk=@Nk=kvksa dk fooj.k %& ch-,-,e-,l- f}rh; o"kZ Ø- la- jksy ua- dk;Zokgh fVIi.kh fo'ks"k fooj.k 1- 407 1- jksy ua- 407 }kjk jl'kkL= ÁFke ¼62 ÁkIrkad½ ,oa pjd ¼59 ÁkIrkad½ dh dkWfi;ka ugha igpkuh x;hA 'ks"k pkj dkWfi;ksa dh igpku dh x;h] ftuesa ls ,d fo"k; vxnra= dh dkWih jksy ua- 382 dh FkhA 2- jksy ua- 407 }kjk ugha igpkuh x;h nks dkWfi;ksa dh jkbZfVax Øe'k% jl'kkL= ÁFke dh 443 dh æO;xq.k ÁFke ,oa f}rh; rFkk 451 dh jl'kkL= f}rh; ls ,oa v"Vkax g`n; jksy ua- 599 ls fey jgh gSa rFkk pjd lafgrk dh dkWih dh jkbZfVax jksy ua- 435 æO;xq.k ÁFke ls fey jgh gSA 3- jksy ua- 407 ÁFke n`"V;k nks"kh Árhr gksrk gSA 2- 443 3- 6 esa ls 5 dkWafi;kW igpkuh x;h] ek= vxnra= dh dkWih ¼ÁkIrkad 67½ ugha igpkuh x;hA 4- æO;xq.k ÁFke ÁkIrkad 57 ,oa f}rh; 63 dh dkWfi;ksa dh fiusa cnyh x;hA 5- jl'kkL= ÁFke ÁkIrkad 64 ,oa f}rh; ÁkIrkad 57 dh dkWfi;ka Øea'k% 407 ,oa 451 ls }kjk cnyh x;hA 6- pjd lafgrk 58 dh dkWih 435 ls@}kjk cnyh x;hA 7- jksy ua- 443 ds Ádj.k esa xSj dk lg;ksx fy;k tkuk ÁLrkfor gSA uksV%& jksy ua- 443 dh jkbfVax dh lekurk 438 pjd] 407 jl”kkL= ÁFke] 451 jl”kkL= f}rh;] 437 jl”kkL= ÁFke ls gSA 3- 457 1- pkj dkWih igpkuh x;h gS v- pjd lafgrk dh jkbfVax ftlds ÁkIrkad 63 gS ÁkFkZuk i= ls fey jgh gSA c- jl'kkL= ÁFke] f}rh;] vxnra= dh jkbfVax fHkUu fHkUu gS ,oa fiu cnyh x;h gSA jl'kkL= ÁFke 441 us] jl'kkL+= f}rh; 424 us dkWih cnyh gSA vxn ÁkIrkad 57 gS] fiu cnyh x;h gSA ijh{k.k fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij bu dkWfi;ksa dh jkbfVax vU; ls fey jgh gSA 2- jksy ua- 457 ÁFke n`"V~;k nks"kh Árhr gksrk gSA The detail of other candidate having Roll No. 382, who has been given bonus marks is quoted as under :- Ø- la jksy ua ijh{k.k fjiksVZ ÁkIrkad ¼lS)kafrd½ fo"k;kuqlkj vkSlr vad ÁLrkfor 1- 382 nks dkWfi;kW cnyh x;h æO;xq.k ÁFke % 33 æO;xq.k ÁFke esa 54 vad rFkk vxnra= esa 54 vad fn;k tkuk ÁLrkfor 1- vxnra= dh dkWih ¼ÁkIrkad 37½ jksy ua- 407 }kjk cnyh x;h gS] tcfd 407 dks bl fo"k; esa 64 vad ÁkIr gq, gSaA æO;xq.k f}rh; % 60 2- æO;xq.k ÁFke dh dkWih ÁkIrkad 33 jksy ua- 457 }kjk cnyh x;h gS] tcfd 457 dks VhŒvkjŒ esa 54 ÁkIrkad n'kkZ;s x;s gSA vxnra= % 37 3- xtV Áko/kkukuqlkj mi;qZDr nksuksa fo"k;ksa esa jks- ua- 382 dks vkSlr vad Ánku fd;k tkuk ÁLrkfor gSA jl'kkL= ÁFke % 53 jksy ua- 407 ,oa 457 nksuks ÁFke n`"V;k nks"kh Árhr gksrs gSA jl'kkL= f}rh; % 56 pjd % 45 24. This Court on bare perusal of the said report finds that allegation against the petitioner is of not identifying her two copies i.e. jl'kkL= ÁFke] pjd and other four copies identified by her included one copy of vxnra= belonging to Roll No.382. 25. The grievance of the petitioner is in respect of discrimination meted out to her as the person who was having roll number 382 and his copy was identified by petitioner having roll number 382 and he was given bonus marks and the petitioner was denied from such bonus marks, this Court finds that only by grant of bonus marks to some other candidates, the petitioner cannot be allowed to plead that discrimination has been meted out to her qua the other similarly situated candidate. 26. This Court further finds that the allegation against the petitioner is not of identifying her four copies and same were also having similar handwriting with Roll numbers 443, 451, 599 & 435, this Court finds that examination of other candidates, who were having roll numbers 443 and 457, has already been cancelled along-with petitioner. 27. This Court further finds that the respondent-University has not only initially constituted a Grievance Committee but later on a subsequent Committee was also constituted and on thorough examination of the answer sheets of the different candidates, they come to conclusion that there has been a use of unfair means/exchange of copies/ answer sheets not bearing handwriting of same persons but written by some other persons, as such, no fault can be found with the action of the respondent-University in passing the order dated 17th January, 2019. 28. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was similarly situated with other candidate i.e. Roll Number 382 and he has been given bonus marks, suffice it to say by this Court that even if such candidate has been given bonus marks, same will not result into conferring any right in favour of the petitioner. The concept of Right to Equality as enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is not a negative concept and two wrongs cannot make one right. 29. This Court finds that if the respondent-University has granted bonus marks to such candidate in spite of some irregularities being found in the examination, the petitioner cannot be allowed to get benefit of the same. 29. This Court finds that if the respondent-University has granted bonus marks to such candidate in spite of some irregularities being found in the examination, the petitioner cannot be allowed to get benefit of the same. This Court is afraid to put a seal of approval on such claim of the petitioner. 30. The submission of counsel for the petitioner that there was no allegation of changing the pin and the same cannot be done by a student, suffice it to say by this Court that these are the areas where only Expert Bodies/ Academician can look into the entire facts and if they come to conclusion that some mischief has been played during examination, it is for the appropriate Authority to take a final decision in these matters. 31. The submission of counsel for the petitioner that only prima facie finding has been recorded against the petitioner and no concrete evidence has been collected or charge has not been proved to the hilt, suffice it to say by this Court that in the matter of using unfair means, if the candidates are afforded adequate opportunity and they are confronted with the material against them and then the Authorities form their opinion, no interference can be made in such a situation. 32. This Court finds that the petitioner has not alleged any malafides against any individual or any Authority, who has acted in a vindictive manner against her and as such, action of the respondent-University cannot be doubted or they acted in arbitrary manner while taking the decision. 33. This Court finds that the relief claimed by the petitioner of reviving her result declared as per mark-sheet dated 25.10.2017, cannot be granted. 34. This Court also finds that during pendency of the writ petition, certain interim orders have been passed and as such, this Court vide order dated 02nd May, 2019 permitted the petitioner to appear in the examination of BAMS Part Third and by order dated 5th August, 2020, the Court recorded that the petitioner had already cleared Third Year BAMS examination and as such, permitted the petitioner to appear on provisional basis in 4 th year BAMS examination. This Court had also made it clear that no equity will be claimed by the petitioner and result of the petitioner will not be declared without prior permission of the Court. 35. This Court had also made it clear that no equity will be claimed by the petitioner and result of the petitioner will not be declared without prior permission of the Court. 35. This Court finds that various interim orders which have been passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, which permitted the petitioner to write her examination for the Third and Fourth Year Examination of BAMS, should not come in her way on account of dismissal of this petition. 36. This Court, considering maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit which means act of the Court shall prejudice no one and as such, the petitioner has been allowed to write her examination due to interim orders, needs to be protected by this Court. 37. The present writ petition is decided by holding that petitioner is not entitled for revival of her result declared of BAMS 2nd year, however, she shall be permitted to write II Year of BAMS Examination, if she qualifies the same, the respondent-University will take into account her result of BAMS Third Year and Fourth Year and if she qualifies in these examinations as well, then accordingly her result may be declared by the University. The present writ petition is accordingly decided in above terms.