Case Note & Summary
The Visvesvaraya Technological University (VTU) imposed a penalty on a mechanical engineering student for alleged malpractice during the second semester Basic Electrical Engineering examination held in June-July 2018. An inspection squad found that the student carried chits, and the Malpractice Cases Consideration Committee (MC³) recommended denial of benefit for all subjects registered in that session. The Registrar (Evaluation) promptly issued an order dated 10.08.2018 cancelling the student’s performance in ten subjects. The student challenged the order before the High Court by way of a writ petition, contending that the Registrar lacked jurisdiction and the penalty was disproportionate. A Single Judge upheld the penalty but directed the University to permit the student to appear for certain backlog subjects and announce withheld results. Later, citing the COVID-19 automatic promotion policy, the student filed a review petition, which the Single Judge allowed by directing declaration of sixth semester results and permitting appearance in the seventh semester examination. Both the University and the student filed writ appeals against these orders. The Division Bench heard the appeals finally. The student’s counsel argued that under the Regulations Governing the Malpractices by the Students during University Examinations, 2009, the MC³ recommendation must be routed through the Vice-Chancellor to the Executive Council, which alone can impose a penalty. The Registrar’s unilateral order was therefore void ab initio. The Court agreed, holding that the mandatory procedure was completely bypassed, rendering the penalty order of 10.08.2018 without jurisdiction and a nullity. Consequently, the Court allowed the student’s appeal, set aside the Single Judge’s orders and the penalty order, and dismissed the University’s appeal. The student became entitled to all consequential benefits.
Headnote
A) Educational Institutions – University Examination Malpractice – Jurisdiction of Registrar – Regulations Governing the Malpractices by the Students during University Examinations, 2009 – The procedure mandated under Clause VII requires the Malpractice Cases Consideration Committee (MC³) to submit its report to the Vice-Chancellor, who then places it before the Executive Council for approval; the penalty must be imposed by the Executive Council. The Registrar (Evaluation) passed the penalty order dated 10.08.2018 without following this procedure. Held, the order is void ab initio for want of jurisdiction. (Paras 11-12)
B) Educational Institutions – University Examination Malpractice – Procedural Compliance – Regulations Governing the Malpractices by the Students during University Examinations, 2009 – The University did not produce any material to show that the MC³ recommendation was placed before the Vice-Chancellor and the Executive Council. The unilateral action of the Registrar in imposing penalty violated the mandatory procedural safeguards. Held, the entire penalty order is illegal and liable to be set aside. (Paras 11-12)
C) Administrative Law – Jurisdictional Error – Void Orders – An order passed by an authority without jurisdiction is void ab initio and cannot be cured by subsequent ratification. The Registrar (Evaluation) lacked inherent power to impose penalty; such an order is a nullity. Held, the Single Judge erred in upholding the penalty. (Paras 11-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the penalty order dated 10.08.2018 passed by the Registrar (Evaluation) was void for want of jurisdiction, and whether the Single Judge was right in upholding it and giving subsequent directions.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed W.A.No.400/2021 (student's appeal), set aside the order of the Single Judge in W.P.No.42781/2018, and quashed the penalty order dated 10.08.2018 as void ab initio. Consequently, W.A.No.333/2021 (University's appeal) was dismissed. The student was entitled to all benefits arising from the quashing of the penalty order.
Law Points
- Registrar (Evaluation) lacks authority to impose malpractice penalty under Regulations
- penalty must be approved by Executive Council after Vice-Chancellor's recommendation
- order passed in violation of mandatory procedure is void ab initio
- students benefit from COVID-19 promotion policy
Case Details
2021 LawText (KAR) (07) 23
Writ Appeal No.333 of 2021 (EDN-RES) connected with Writ Appeal No.400 of 2021 (EDN-RES)
B.V. Nagarathna, Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Ashok Haranahalli, Santosh S. Nagarale, Ajoy Kumar Patil, Kalyani Agarwal, Sharath Gowda, G.B. Sharath Gowda
The Registrar (Evaluation), Visvesvaraya Technological University, Belagavi, and Mohammed Azvin H.K.
Mohammed Azvin H.K., The Principal, Srinivasa Institute of Technology, Mangalore, and The Chief Superintendent of VTU Exams, Srinivasa Institute of Technology, Mangalore, and The Registrar (Evaluation), Visvesvaraya Technological University, Belagavi
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ appeals against orders passed in a writ petition and a review petition concerning imposition of penalty on a student for examination malpractice by Visvesvaraya Technological University.
Remedy Sought
In W.A.333/2021, the University sought to set aside the Single Judge's order directing announcement of sixth semester results and permission to appear in seventh semester exams. In W.A.400/2021, the student sought to quash the penalty order dated 10.08.2018 and allow him to continue his education without prejudice.
Filing Reason
The University contended that the Single Judge erred in granting relief in the review petition. The student argued that the penalty order was void ab initio due to lack of jurisdiction and disproportionate punishment.
Previous Decisions
The Single Judge in W.P.No.42781/2018 upheld the penalty order but directed the University to permit the student to appear for seven backlog subjects. In R.P.No.36/2021, the Single Judge directed the University to announce the sixth semester results and permit the student to attend the seventh semester exams.
Issues
Whether the Registrar (Evaluation) had jurisdiction to impose a penalty under the Regulations Governing the Malpractices by the Students during University Examinations, 2009.
Whether the procedure prescribed in the Regulations was followed before imposing the penalty.
Whether the penalty order dated 10.08.2018 was void ab initio.
Whether the Single Judge was justified in upholding the penalty and later granting relief in the review petition.
Submissions/Arguments
Student's counsel argued that the penalty order was void ab initio as it was passed by the Registrar without jurisdiction. Only the Executive Council could impose penalty after the Vice-Chancellor placed the MC³ recommendation before it.
It was submitted that the mandatory procedure under Clause VII of the Regulations was not followed; the order was passed even before the MC³ recommendation could be routed through the Vice-Chancellor and Executive Council.
The student also contended that the penalty was disproportionate and that the COVID-19 automatic promotion policy should apply to him.
University's counsel opposed the arguments but primarily relied on the MC³'s recommendation and the admission of carrying chits by the student.
Ratio Decidendi
The Registrar (Evaluation) acted without jurisdiction in imposing the penalty. The mandatory procedure under the Regulations required the MC³ recommendation to be placed before the Vice-Chancellor and then before the Executive Council for decision; the Registrar had no independent power to impose such a penalty. Any order passed in violation of the prescribed procedure is void ab initio and cannot be sustained.
Judgment Excerpts
the order at Annexure-C dated 10.08.2018 is void ab initio. It is an order passed by the Registrar (Evaluation) without having any jurisdiction or authority.
the procedure contemplated under the Regulations Governing the Malpractices by the Students during University Examinations - 2009 to be followed with regard to any malpractice alleged against any student, is that an enquiry has to be conducted by the MC³. Thereafterwards, the MC³ has to submit its report to the Vice-Chancellor. The Vice-Chancellor of the University in turn has to bring it to the notice of the Executive Council for its consideration and approval and thereafter the Executive Council has to take a decision on the penalty or punishment to be imposed.
Procedural History
The student joined B.E. Mechanical Engineering in June 2017. On 30.06.2018, during the Basic Electrical Engineering exam, the Inspection Squad found him carrying chits. The MC³ conducted an enquiry where the student admitted to carrying the chits. The Registrar (Evaluation) passed an order dated 10.08.2018 cancelling his June-July 2018 examination performance in all subjects. The student filed W.P.No.42781/2018 challenging this order. The Single Judge on 12.01.2021 upheld the penalty but directed the University to permit him to appear for backlog subjects. The student then filed R.P.No.36/2021 citing the COVID-19 promotion policy, and the Single Judge on 04.02.2021 directed announcement of sixth semester results and permission for seventh semester exams. The University filed W.A.333/2021 against the review order, and the student filed W.A.400/2021 against the original writ petition order. Both appeals were heard together and finally disposed of on 01.07.2021.
Acts & Sections
- Karnataka High Court Act, 1961: Section 4
