Allowed

Karan Hiraj Dantwala v. the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC13 Feb 2020WP/669/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court examined an order debarbing a petitioner from a re-examination due to malpractice. The Court interpreted college regulations, distinguishing between penalties for written material and scribbled notes. It quashed the order debarbing the petitioner from re-examination in January/February 2020, allowing only the cancellation of performance in the current session.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order debarbing the petitioner from the re-examination in January/February 2020 is quashed. The respondent college is directed to permit the petitioner to appear for the re-examination an

Karan Hiraj Dantwala Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

WPL 501-2020.doc

¶2

sat

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 501 OF 2020

¶5

Karan Niraj Dantwala ...Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶6

Mr.Arshil Shah with Ms.Vishal Raman and Jaini Shah for Petitioner. Mr.Kedar Dighe, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 3. Ms.Manorama Mohanty with Sadhana Datar i/b. S.K. Srivastav & Co. for Respondent No.2.

¶7

CORAM : S.C. GUPTE, J.

¶8

DATE : 13 FEBRUARY 2020

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent of parties, taken up for final hearing.

¶11

2 Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶12

3 This writ petition challenges an order (order dated 27 January 2020) passed by the second Respondent college debarring the Petitioner herein from appearing in Semester-III re-examination to be conducted in January/February 2020. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner was caught during the examination conducted in November 2019 for Semester-III while in possession of, and/or copying from, copying material. Under the applicable college regulations, framed under guidelines of Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education, Mumbai, which provide for penalty to the examinees for various instances of malpractices, punishment of

1 / 5

WPL 501-2020.doc

sat

cancellation of full performance of the examinee in current examination/s in which he/she has appeared, has been prescribed if the examinee is caught in the examination session while in possession of, and/or copying from material. The Petitioner does not dispute that he was so caught during the examination of a particular subject and his performance in all papers of Semester-III was cancelled. His grievance is that the Respondent college, through its examination committee, has imposed excessive punishment on him. It is submitted that the impugned order passed by the second Respondent college indicates that not only his performance of theory as well as practical/oral work of appeared courses for Semester-III examination of November/December 2019 was cancelled, but he is not being allowed to appear for the next examination to be conducted in January/February 2020 (re-examination for Semester-III courses).

¶17

4 At the outset, it must be noted that the impugned order of the college does not state why excessive penalty is levied on the Petitioner. Learned Counsel for the Respondent college submits that the particular malpractice, of which the Petitioner was found guilty, comes under Serial No.8 and not Serial No.7 of the concerned Table of Penalties, as alleged by the Petitioner. Serial No.8 provides for penalty of cancellation of not only full performance of the examinee in the current examination/s in which he/she has appeared, but in addition to debarment from appearing for the next examination, if the examinee is caught during the examination while in possession and/or copying from the copying material in the form of written or printed material/stored in electronic gadget, smart watch, I-pad, etc. On the other hand, if the examinee is caught while in possession and/or copying from the copying material scribbled on/question paper/articles/clothes/body parts, under Serial No.7, punishment

2 / 5

WPL 501-2020.doc

sat

prescribed is cancellation of full performance in the current examination. It is not in dispute that the examinee in the present case was caught with scribbled notes. What is, however, submitted is that even if the examinee is caught while in possession and/or copying from scribbled notes, that still amounts to possession or copying from the copying material in the form of written material and accordingly, penalty under Serial No.8 is attracted.

¶22

5 Learned Counsel is not right there. If scribbled notes were to be treated as written material within the meaning of Serial No.8, then, Entry No.7 is practically rendered otiose. If every note, whether printed or stored in any gazette or in any written form, including scribbled notes, were to be treated as part of the malpractice referred to in Serial No.8 of the list, there would not be a single instance covered under Serial No.7. That obviously cannot be. The relevant entries are as follows :

¶23

Sr. NATURE OF MALPRACTICE QUANTUM OF PUNISHMENT No. 7 Examinee caught during the Cancellation of full performance in the examination session while in current examination/s. (1+0) possession and / or copying from the copying material scribbled on / question paper / articles / clothes / body parts.

¶24

8 Examinee caught during the Cancellation of full performance of the examination session while in alleged examinee in the current possession and/or copying from examination/s in which he/she has the copying material in the form appeared, plus debarment from of written or printed material / appearing in the next one examination. stored in electronic gadget like (1+1) mobile phone, smart watch, I pad, etc.

3 / 5

WPL 501-2020.doc

sat

The correct interpretation and re-conciliation of Serial Nos.7 and 8 would imply that Serial No.7 refers to copying material scribbled on any article including a question paper or cloth or body part, whereas Serial No.8 covers material, whether written or printed or stored in any electronic gazette like mobile phone, smart watch, I-pad, etc. Only when so interpreted, the two entries can be reconciled.

¶29

6 Going by this interpretation, the Petitioner’s case really falls within Serial No.7 and attracts the penalty of cancellation of his performance in the current examination (i.e. Semester-III Examination conducted in November/ December 2019). He cannot be further visited with the penalty of debarment from appearing in the next examination, i.e. the examination to be conducted in January/February 2020 (reexamination for Semester-III courses).

¶30

7 Accordingly, the impugned order cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶31

8 Rule is, in the premises, made absolute and the petition is allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned order of the second Respondent college to the extent it provides for debarment of the Petitioner from appearing for the examination (re-examination) to be conducted in January/February 2020 for Semester-III courses (Item No.3 of the penalty referred to in the impugned order dated 27 January 2020). The second Respondent is directed to permit the Petitioner to appear for the reexamination of Semester-III courses to be conducted in January/February 2020.

4 / 5

WPL 501-2020.doc

sat

9 The second Respondent college shall permit the Petitioner to fill in and submit his examination form in the course of the present week.

¶36

(S.C. GUPTE, J.)

¶37

5 / 5

Karan Hiraj Dantwala v. the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karan Hiraj Dantwala v. the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

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

Pidilite Industries Limited. Vs Tayyab Ali Malak and 2 Ors.

Nandkumar Gavade Vs M/S. Dhwani Eenterprise and Anr.

M/S. Tenova India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Uday Dattatray Paradkar

Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Association of India Vs Usv Ltd.

Midas Hygiene Industries Private Limited Vs S. R. Herbal and Anr.

Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Vs M/S Usv Ltd.