Partly allowed

Arpit Pradeep Gadbail and Another v. Sant Gadgebaba Amravati University Thr. Registrar and Others

Bombay HC26 Jul 2016WP/2286/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court quashed orders barring students from examinations due to alleged malpractice. The High Court directed the University to conduct a time-bound enquiry within fifteen days following principles of natural justice and allowed students to appear provisionally in the meantime.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed and set aside; University directed to complete enquiry within 15 days; petitioners permitted to appear provisionally.

Arpit Pradeep Gadbail and Another Vs Sant Gadgebaba… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1/4

¶2

2607wp2244.16, 2285.16 & 2286.16

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2244 OF 2016

¶5

(Piyush Nemichand Dhoot vs. Sant Gadgebaba Amravati University and others) WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2285 OF 2016

¶6

(Gaurav Anil Malviya vs. Sant Gadgebaba Amravati University and others) WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2286 OF 2016

¶7

(Arpit Pradeep Gadbail and others vs. Sant Gadgebaba Amravati University and others)

¶8

__________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶9

Shri H.S. Chitaley, Advocate for petitioners. Shri N.S. Badhe, Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 3. --------- CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.

¶10

DATED : JULY 26, 2016

¶11

A student each in Writ Petition Nos.2244/2016 and 2285/2016 and four students together in Writ Petition No. 2286/2016, all studying in different Colleges, are before this Court questioning orders of University debarring them from further examinations because of use of malpractices in concerned examinations. They point out that without following due procedure and in breach of principles of natural justice, punishment has been imposed.

¶12

This Court initially issued notice and

¶13

2/4

¶14

2607wp2244.16, 2285.16 & 2286.16

¶15

thereafter interim orders have been passed in Writ Petition Nos. 2244/2016 and 2285/2016. Students therein have been permitted to appear for next examination provisionally subject to outcome of the challenge before this Court.

¶16

In Writ Petition No. 2286/2016, interim orders have not been pressed for as examination of University is scheduled to commence in the month of August 2016.

¶17

Though respective Colleges are served, they have chosen not to appear. Adv. Badhe appearing for respondent University, which has passed the impugned orders, on telephonic instructions, states that respondent University is ready and willing to extend due opportunity to all the petitioners. He further submits that if the matter is made time bound, finding on use of unfair means or otherwise can be reached before August 2016, i.e. before commencement of examination of four students, who are petitioners in Writ Petition No.2286/2016.

¶18

In view of this fair statement, Adv. Chitaley for petitioners has no objection if enquiries are undertaken as per law and decided in time bound manner.

¶19

In view of this development, we quash

¶20

2607wp2244.16, 2285.16 & 2286.16

¶21

3/4

¶22

and set aside the impugned orders dated 19/1/2016 passed by competent Authority and orders dated 4/3/2016 passed in review. We direct respondent University to extend necessary opportunity to all the petitioners and to complete enquiry within a period of fifteen days from today. The petitioners are directed to appear before University for the said purpose on 29/7/2016 and to abide by further instructions of University in the matter.

¶23

Interim orders granted to petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 2244/2016 and 2285/2016 shall be subject to outcome of such enquiry to be conducted by University.

¶24

If for any reasons, orders cannot be passed, all petitioners including petitioners in Writ Petition No.2286/2016 shall be permitted provisionally to appear for next ensuing examination. The performance of petitioners in said examination shall be subject to orders of University in the matter of use of unfair means.

¶25

All writ petitions are thus partly allowed and disposed of. No costs.

¶26

JUDGE JUDGE

¶27

khj

¶28

2607wp2244.16, 2285.16 & 2286.16

¶29

4/4

¶30

CERTIFICATE

¶31

I certify that this order uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed order.

¶32

Uploaded by : Uploaded on : Kamal H. Jeswani 27/07/2016 Private Secretary

Arpit Pradeep Gadbail and Another v. Sant Gadgebaba Amravati University Thr. Registrar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arpit Pradeep Gadbail and Another v. Sant Gadgebaba Amravati University Thr. Registrar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Krushna Kumar Gokulchand Thr. Partner Mr. Krushna Kumar S/O Gokulchand Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Food, Mumbai and Others

Gram Panchayat, through Its Sarpanch, Smt. Jaywanta W/O Dhaniram Matale Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Rural Development, Mumbai and 3 Others

Late Shri Vitthalraoji Chamat Smruti Sewa Sanstha, Hrough Its Sec. Dnyaneshwar v. Chamat and Anothe Vs the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, and Others

Jayant Shikshan Sanstha, Amgaon, Gondia, Thr. Its Secretary and 2 Others Vs Shri Nandkumar, State of Maha. of Education, Mumbai

Ku. Rajani D/O Chandrabhan Madvai Vs Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and 3 Others

Piyush Nemichand Dhoot Vs Sant Gadgebaba Amravati University, through Its Registrar and Another