P&H High Court Sets Aside Single Judge's Order Upholding Exam Cancellation Of MBBS Students Allegedly Found Using Unfair Means

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has set aside the single Judge's decision that upheld the cancellation of the entire academic year of MBBS students, allegedly found using unfair means by a university in Haryana's Rohtak.

A division bench of Justice Deepak Sibal and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur said, "we unhesitantly conclude that before cancellation of their entire MBBS Ist Professional Examination the appellants were not granted reasonable opportunity to defend themselves which violates not only Clause 7 of Ordinance 4 of the University's Calendar (Pt. Bhagwat Dayal Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak) but also the rule of audi alteram partem."

It further held that the impugned decisions of the University are also flawed for being bereft of any reason. In fact the decision of the University to cancel the appellants' examination is in the form of a declaration. The orders of the University which have been impugned by the appellants would affect them for their entire academic life. Non-supplying of reasons for such decisions is legally unacceptable.

These observations were made while hearing the Letter Patents Appeal (LPA) against single Judge's decision of the High Court wherein it refused to interfere in the university's decision to cancel the entire exam for MBBS students who were allegedly found using unfair means.

It was alleged that the medical students were using unfair means at the examination centre allowed for appear first year of the MBBS degree. The Standing Committee on Unfair Means Cases of the University (UMC) decided to cancel the appellants' entire MBBS 1st Professional Examination.

Proceedings Before Single Judge

The Single Judge held that, "using unfair means in examinations is not only unethical but also detrimental to the overall development of individuals and the nation as a whole. MBBS students, who are pursuing a career in medicine, are expected to adhere to the highest ethical standards due to the critical nature of their profession."

It also rejected the petitioner's argument that the students were not given opportunity of hearing, the bench noted, "University duly supported by the documentary evidence in the form of original record of the proceedings of various committees including the Standing Committee on unfair means that due opportunity of hearing had been given to all the petitioners and even otherwise in a case of copying in the manner, as has been done in the instant case, is clearly evident from the CCTV footage, the principle of natural justice need not be strictly complied with."

Proceeding In Letter Patents Appeal

However, the division bench set aside the decision stating that the present case is "not a case of mass copying" or where the entire examination process was vitiated.

In the facts of the instant case it was also not impracticable to hold an inquiry. Therefore, before cancelling the appellants' MBBS 1st Professional Examination on the ground of them having indulged in unfair means rule of audi alteram partem was required to be followed, it added.

Perusing the decision of UMC to cancel the exam, it noted that the "cancelling the appellants' entire MBBS 1st Professional Examination is in the form of a declaration."

"It does not reveal as to what proceedings took place...leading to the UMC Committee's declaration. It is also bereft of any reason on which such declaration was based. The declaration also does not spell out as to why the appellants' entire MBBS 1st Professional Examination had been cancelled when the alleged irregularities were only with regard to the examination held on 17.02.2023 in the subject of Biochemistry," added the Court.

The Court also rejected the ground given by single judge to uphold the decision that the judge himself  watched the  "CCTV footage." 

"Even if in the CCTV footage faces of all the students were easily identifiable the exact role, if any, of each of the appellants was required to be determined by the authorities after following the due process of law," it added.

While granting the liberty, "to the University to proceed against the appellants for the irregularities allegedly committed by them but only after affording them a reasonable opportunity as also by passing a reasoned final order", the Court set aside impugned judgment of the single judge.

Appearance: Ashwani Kumar Chopra, Senior Advocate, with Vidul Kapoor, Advocate for the appellants.

Hitesh Pandit, Addl.A.G., Haryana.

H.S.Gill, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 5.

Title: Shivam Tanwar and others v. State of Haryana and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 267

Click here to read/download the order.