JUDGMENT : Muralee Krishna, J. 1. This writ appeal is filed under Section 5 (i) of the KERALA HIGH COURT ACT , 1958, by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.20058 of 2025, challenging the judgment dated 03.06.2025, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P9 order dated 17.02.2025 issued by the 3 rd respondent to the extent it cancels appellant’s semester III and V, UG examinations of November-December 2024, conducted by respondents 2 and 3 and also a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2 and 3 to declare the appellant’s result in semester III and V, UG examinations. 2. The appellant was a student of the three-year B.A. Analytical Economics Course at the 2 nd respondent College. She cleared all subjects of the first five semesters, except the third semester Hindi examination paper of Grammar, Communicative Hindi and Information Technology. The appellant applied for the supplementary examination of the failed Hindi paper and improvement examination of two subjects viz., Statistical Tools for Economics and Intermediate Micro Economics. She appeared in the supplementary examination of Grammar, Communicative Hindi and Information Technology on 22.11.2024 and completed the exam. But while appearing for the improvement exam in Statistical Tools for Economics on 25.11.2024, she was caught using unfair means, since she wrote a few equations on the back of her hall ticket. According to the appellant, though she immediately erased the equations from the hall ticket before the question paper was served, while erasing, the Invigilator apprehended her and accused her of malpractice. The Invigilator reported it to the Examination Chief; and from there to the Controller. The college authorities did not permit her to write the examination for Statistical Tools for Economics. The college authorities further did not allow her to attend the 2 nd improvement examination of the subject Intermediate Micro Economics. Along with the appellant, the Controller of Examinations proceeded against 22 other students for examination malpractice, on reasons varying, including possessing written materials, writing answers on hand, for possessing mobile phones, etc. The Controller of Examinations summoned the appellant along with her mother, and during the hearing, he remarked to the mother of the appellant that the appellant was caught red-handed for writing on the back side of the hall ticket. The Controller of Examinations summoned the appellant along with her mother, and during the hearing, he remarked to the mother of the appellant that the appellant was caught red-handed for writing on the back side of the hall ticket. The appellant then submitted an apology letter, and she had also agreed to pay a total hearing fee of Rs.3,030/-. On 13.05.2025, when the appellant, along with her mother went to the College to enquire about the proceedings, the Controller informed her that all the examinations attempted by her were cancelled and so results of her Hindi supplementary examination would not be announced and handed over Ext.P9 order dated 17.02.2025 issued by the Controller of Examinations to the appellant. Challenging Ext.P9, the appellant approached this Court with the writ petition as stated above. 3. In the writ appeal, the 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 20.06.2025 opposing the reliefs sought in the appeal and producing therewith Exts.R2(a) to R2(h) documents. To that counter affidavit, the appellant filed a reply affidavit dated 03.07.2025. 4. After hearing both sides and appreciation of materials on record, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by the judgment dated 03.06.2025, holding that when the disciplinary committee constituted by the College has found the appellant to have used unfair means in the examination and the punishment imposed is in accordance with the examination rules, this Court has no scope to interfere in the punishment awarded to the appellant and others. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and also the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent University of Kerala. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant would argue that from Ext.P9 order dated 17.02.2025 issued by the 3 rd respondent Controller of Examinations, it could be seen that the same punishment was imposed on all the 23 students, including the appellant, against whom attempted malpractices were reported. Against some of the students, the allegation of malpractice was serious than that of the appellant. The punishment imposed on her by cancelling all her examinations attempted is not proportionate to the allegation. The learned counsel would further submit that when some writings were found in the hall ticket while the appellant was in the examination hall for attending a particular examination, there is no justification for cancelling all the examinations attempted by her. The punishment imposed on her by cancelling all her examinations attempted is not proportionate to the allegation. The learned counsel would further submit that when some writings were found in the hall ticket while the appellant was in the examination hall for attending a particular examination, there is no justification for cancelling all the examinations attempted by her. In fact, the respondents have no case that the appellant brought something written on the hall ticket. The appellant scribbled something in the hall ticket before the examination, and she had even tried to erase those writings, and it was at that time she was caught by the Invigilator. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the College would submit that the punishment of cancellation of all the examinations attempted by the appellant is in consonance with the provisions under the Kerala University First Statutes of 1977. Moreover, there is a clause entered in the hall ticket itself which says that candidates are prohibited from writing upon the hall tickets. Any candidate found violating any of the rules in the conduct of examinations will be liable for cancellation of the examination taken by the candidate. The learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition, and no interference is warranted with that judgment by this Court by exercising the appellate jurisdiction, since no sufficient ground is made out by the appellant to say that there is any illegality or impropriety in that judgment. 8. The learned counsel for the 1 st respondent University would submit that the 2 nd respondent is an autonomous College and hence examinations are conducted by the College itself. 9. While the appellant was attending the examination of Statistical Tools for Economics on 25.11.2024, the Invigilator caught her for malpractice, for the reason that she had written the formulas on the back side of the hall ticket. According to the appellant, she had written those formulas in the hall ticket for the purpose of refreshing her memory. During the enquiry by the Controller of Examinations, the appellant wrote Ext.R2(e) letter wherein she had admitted that she had committed malpractice during semester III improvement examination, by writing on the back side of the hall ticket. 10. According to the appellant, she had written those formulas in the hall ticket for the purpose of refreshing her memory. During the enquiry by the Controller of Examinations, the appellant wrote Ext.R2(e) letter wherein she had admitted that she had committed malpractice during semester III improvement examination, by writing on the back side of the hall ticket. 10. As per Chapter XIV of Ext.R2(c) Exam Manual of University of Kerala, malpractices in the University Examinations include any act or acts by a candidate or by his/her agents performed with the intention of gaining undue advantage in the evaluation, resorting to unfair means during the examination or afterwards. Causing obstruction of the smooth conduct of examination, preventing others from appearing for the examination, causing interruption in their performance at the examination and tampering with the records of the examination are also included within the purview of malpractice. Different types of malpractices and punishments for them, as decided by the Syndicate, are provided in that Chapter. As far as the introduction of any material relevant to the examination, inadvertently within the hall, the punishment prescribed is debarring for one or two chances. Similarly, introduction of any material relevant to the examination, willfully with the intention of copying and possession of the same within the hall, is liable for punishment of debarring for three chances. In the instant case, the Academic Council of the College, in its 15 th Academic Council meeting, took Ext.R2(b) decision on 30.04.2024 wherein it was decided to approve the rule to cancel all the examinations in that semester of students who were caught for malpractice in a particular semester. 11. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the College invited our attention to Clause (xxiv) of Chapter VI of the Kerala University First Statutes 1977 which says that if a candidate is found guilty of using or attempting to use unfair means at an examination or a report is made as to any candidate having copied either from some book or note or from the answers of another candidate or in any other manner or of helping or receiving help from another candidate in an examination, the syndicate may cancel his/her examination and also debar him /her appearing at the examination of the University for one or more years according to the nature of the offence committed by the candidate. 12. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 08.11.2013 in W.A. Nos.1411 of 2013 and other connected writ appeals to argue that the punishment of cancelling all the examinations when malpractice is detected only in one examination as too harsh. But while going through the judgment of the Division Bench, we notice that the basis for malpractice alleged in that case is the pattern found in respect of the answers given by the students in one paper out of the four papers. It was on the basis of suspicion, malpractice was alleged in that case. Based on the peculiar facts of that cases, the Division Bench affirmed the view taken by the learned Single Judge on the basis that the wrongdoing was essentially detected only in respect of one of the papers and hence concurred with the findings of the learned Single Judge that there is no basis for cancelling the examination in all papers. But in the instant case, as noted above, the nature of malpractice is something different, and the appellant had even admitted the same by writing an apology. Therefore, the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A. Nos.1411 of 2013 and other connected writ appeals has no application to the facts of the instant case. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant further relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh v. Bihar Legislative Council (through Secretary) and others , AIR 2025 SC 1276 to argue regarding the proportionality of punishment. But while going through that judgment, we notice that the issue in that case was connected with unparliamentary conduct by the petitioner therein, including the use of derogatory expressions in his capacity as a Member of the Legislative Council (MLC) within the scope of the Bihar Legislative Council (BLC). At no stretch of imagination, the facts of that case can be pressed into service to make it applicable to the instant case. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Police and others v. Sandeep Kumar , (2011) 4 SCC 644 to argue that the consideration of young age shall be given to the appellant. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Police and others v. Sandeep Kumar , (2011) 4 SCC 644 to argue that the consideration of young age shall be given to the appellant. Sandeep Kumar was a case of registration of a criminal case against a candidate when he was at the age of 20 years old for making a false statement in his application submitted for the post of Head Constable (Ministerial). Therefore, the facts of Sandeep Kumar are also not applicable to the instant case. 15. The learned counsel for the College, during the course of arguments, relied on a judgment of this Court dated 11.08.2014 in W.P.(C)No.27417 of 2013, wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court opined that malpractice in examinations are to be viewed seriously and has to be discouraged by the University by imposing appropriate punishments. It is held by the learned Single judge in that judgment that Malpractices are offences not only against the system of examination but also are wrongs committed against other students who work hard to achieve excellence. In that judgment, the learned Single Judge further held that the petitioners therein having been found guilty of malpractice, the University was within its powers to cancel the entire examination. It was also held by the learned Single Judge that the facts of W.P.(C)No.15992 of 2013 and connected matters from which W.A.No.1411 of 2013 and connected matters were filed, are not applicable to that case. 16. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no sufficient ground to hold that the punishment imposed on the appellant by Ext.P9 order dated 17.02.2025 by the 3 rd respondent Controller of Examinations, is against any of the statutory provisions. It cannot be said as disproportionate to the malpractice detected. There is no circumstance to hold that the learned single judge went wrong in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant, holding that the punishment imposed on the appellant is in accordance with the examination rules. In such circumstances, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. In the result, the writ appeal stands dismissed.