Patna High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging the Cancellation of MBBS Part-II Exam Result

Must Read

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years...

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA)....

Follow us

The petitioner filed a writ petition against the quashing of his Third Professional MBBS Part-II exam result. The respondent Government Medical College canceled the result of his four papers. The college did not evaluate these papers.

Facts of the Case 

The petitioner got admission in 2015 in the MBBS course in Government Medical College. In January 2020, his Third Professional MBBS Part-II exam was being held at Motihari College of Engineering. During the examination, the invigilator found the petitioner with a chit. The invigilator asked for an explanation. However, he denied copying from the chit. He contended that the chit was lying near his desk and did not belong to him. After the result was declared, he found out that the college did not release his result, and instead canceled the same.

Petitioner’s Submissions

The counsel contended that the authorities did not hear the petitioner. This is in direct violation of the principles of natural justice. The authorities did not see the answer papers or any material which supported the allegation. There was nothing to prove that the petitioner cheated using the chit. Hence, the decision of the university to cancel the examination is baseless. Due to the unjust decision, the college has jeopardized the career of a medical student.

Respondent’s Submissions

The counsel contended that the invigilator found the petitioner copying from the chit. In adherence to Clauses 5 and 6 of the Rules for Unfair Means of the college, the invigilator filled up the form for reporting this matter. The petitioner also put his signature on the same form consensually. He further signed on another form which stated that the examinees could not carry such unwanted items in the hall.

The principal of the college knew of this case. Hence, the college decided to expel the petitioner. Moreover, the misbehavior of the petitioner continued after getting caught. The petitioners and other examinees created chaos and hurled abuses at the principal. They also destroyed the window glass and street lights situated within the campus. The principal reported this to the officer-in-charge of the Mussafil Police Station under Sec. 353 and 427 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Also, as per clause 7 of the Rules for Unfair means of the University, it sought an explanation from the petitioner. The college issued a show-cause notice and it contained the chit caught with the petitioner. The authorities also forwarded a copy of the notice to the principal of the petitioner’s college.

The petitioner submitted his reply in which he did not deny the recovery of the chit from his possession. He responded that he saw the chit of paper near his desk. He got anxious and in an attempt to get that away from his desk, he got caught by the invigilator. Hence, the invigilator misunderstood the situation. In the meeting, the Unfair Means Committee referred to the complaint and report.

Court’s Order

In the present case, the petitioner himself admitted that the chit was in his possession. The petitioner was also issued a show-cause notice. The petitioner had not alleged any male fide against the invigilator. The university had followed the rules in a proper manner. Since the petitioner was found with the chit, the offense falls under Category 3 of the rules. Hence, all four papers were canceled. The petitioner was allowed a fair chance to make his defense.

The Court held that the writ petition was devoid of any merit. As a result, the Court dismissed the same.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA). It prayed that severe restrictions...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -