DIRECTOR ( STUDIES) & ORS. versus VAIBHAV SINGH CHAUHAN

Citation: [2008] 15 S.C.R. 224 · Decided: 04-11-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 15 S.C.R. 224 
y 
,4' 
A 
DIRECTOR (STUDIES) & ·oRS. 
II. 
VAIBHAV SINGH CHAUHAN 
(Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2008) 
B 
NOVEMBER 4, 2008 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.] 
y 
Education: 
c 
Examination Rules of the National Council of Hotel 
Management and Cstering Technology, New Delhi: 
rr. 8.1 and 9.2 -'.-- 'Malpractice' - Student while writing 
examination in 2005 found in possession of a slip containing 
D 
material of the subject concerned - Disqualified for one 
academic session snd allowed to take readmission in same 
~ 
class for academic session 2006-2007 - High Court by 
interim order directing the Institute to permit· the s,tudent to 
reappear in the forthcoming examination in th.e subject 
concerned and by final judgment directing the Institute to 
E · declare his result of the re-written examination in the subject 
concerned and results of all the subjects of 2005 Examination 
- Division Bench declining to interfere holding that the 
punishmentimposed by Institution was disproportionate -
t 
HELD: The student fs clearly guilty of malpractice - He has 
)' 
F been given the minimum punishment - No lesser punishment 
· could have been given except in exceptional circumstances 
and it was not a fit case for exercising discretion by waiving 
or reducing the minimum punishment- There·is no illegality 
in the order passed by the Institution - Nor are the Rules 
G invalid nor violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 
/ 
Educational matters - Examinations - Student found 
y 
+, 
guilty of unfair means/malpractice - HELD: High Courts 
should not ordinarily interfere with orders pass.ed in 
H educational matters by domestic tribunals set up by 
224 
...... 
'f 
DIRECTOR (STUDIES) & ORS. v. VAIBHAV SINGH 
225 
CHAUHAN 
educational institutions, unless there is clear violation of A 
some statutory rule or legal principle - In academic matters, 
there should be strict discipline and malpractices should be 
severely punished. 
The respondent was pursuing the degree course in 
8 
Hospitality and Hotel Administration. In the third and final 
year examination which was held in April 2005, while 
writing the answer scripts in the subject 'Front Office 
Management', he was caught with a slip containing 
material relevant to the subject. A 'malpractice' case was 
C 
initiated against him. The respondent confessed t~at the 
slip was in his own handwriting. The Institute disqualified 
him for one academic session and permitted him to take 
readmission for the academic session 2006-07 in the 
same class and to appear in the annual examination in 
2007. In the writ petition filed by the student, the single 
D 
Judge of the High Court by an interim order dated 
31.3.2006, directed the Institution to permit him "to appear 
in the forthcoming 'Front Office Management' 
Examination". Thereafter, in the final judgment, the single 
Judge directed the Institution to declare the student's 
E 
result of the re-written examination in the subject 'Front 
Office Management' and also to declare his results in all 
other subjects in which he had appeared in 2005. The 
Institution having remained unsuccessful in the Letters 
Patent Appeal, filed th·e instant appeal. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The respondent is clearly guilty of 
malpractice as defined in sub-rule (1) of Rule 8.1 of the 
Examination Rules of the National. Council of Hotel G 
Management and Catering Technology, New Delhi. The 
~ ~ 
plea that there was no evidence to show that the 
respondent had actually used the slip of paper found in 
his possession, is wholly irrelevant. All that is relevant is 
whether the slip of paper found in the possession of the 
H 
226 
SUPREME· COURT REPORTS 
[2008f 15 S.C.R. 
A examinee pertained to the examination paper in question. 
If itcioes, then itis a malpractice. In the instant case, the 
slip of paper, which contained the materfal pertaining to 
the paper in question, was brought into the examination 
hall a.nd was found to be in possession of the examinee 
s while .wrifing the examination. Whether the respondent 
actu~lly used that slip or not is irrelevant. It is true that . 
y 
• 
seeing .a slip of paper before commencement of the 
y 
examination is not a malprac,tice, but in the instant case 
the court is concerned with its use during th.e 
c examination and not'before the examination. In academic 
matters there should be strict discipline and malpractices 
should be severely punished~ iPara 8, 9, 18 an

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.