IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12282 of 2009 CHANDRA BHUSHAN PRAKASH PASWAN Versus NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & ORS. ----------- 3/ 05/11/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the N.I.T. The petitioner is a student of the N.I.T., Patna in the four year B. Tech course. He joined in the Sessions 2008-2009, which commences from July to August of the next year. The course consists of two semesters, first ends in December and the 2nd in May/June. He cleared the first semester in December, 2008. In the 2nd semester during May/June, 2008-2009 unfortunately, he got involved in a controversy with regard to use of unfairmeans and which is not the issue in the present writ application. In pursuance of his being involved in unfair practice and unfairmeans during the examination, the impugned order dated 28.7.2009 debarring him from examination in the next academic session and requiring him to take admission in the same semester thereafter i.e. in 2010-2011 has been passed. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the next academic session for the petitioner in normal course would have been in the year 2009-2010 when he would have pursued his studies in the second year. 2 That is what he has been debarred from. The petitioner, therefore, has a right to appear as a candidate in the 2nd semester for the Sessions 2009-2010 and he cannot be compelled to take admission in Session 2010-2011, thereby wasting one year of his academic career. Reliance is placed on similar permission accorded to certain other candidates by the N.I.T., details whereof are mentioned in paragraph 11 of the writ application. Counsel for the N.I.T. submits that the regulations are very clear and on account of certain ambiguity certain persons were erroneously allowed to appear. A fresh corrigendum has been issued on 24.4.2009. The submission on behalf of the N.I.T. is that a candidate who is found to have been using unfairmeans in the semester is debarred for the next academic session as a measure of punishment. After the punishment is allowed to run its course, the candidate is permitted to take admission in the next academic session. Applying that interpretation, what transpires is that for the unfairmeans indulged in May/June semester examination in 2009, the petitioner as a measure of punishment is debarred from appearing in May/June examination of the Sessions 2009-2010. After the punishment has completed its course, the 3 petitioner is allowed to join the next academic session after the duration of punishment in 2010-2011. This Court does not find any unreasonableness or arbitrariness in this decision, warranting interference. Where a candidate has been found using unfairmeans, the fact that the N.I.T. under an erroneous impression may have granted a benefit to others wrongly, when the N.I.T. now explicitly acknowledges this mistake, no order can be passed to perpetuate an illegality by directing parity in illegality. This writ application has no merits. It is, accordingly, dismissed. AKS/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)