THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No.15992 of 2009 Oral order: The petitioner is studying 2nd year B.E. (ECE course) in respondent No.3-College. He appeared for papers namely, Analog Electronics, Electrical Technology Laboratory, and Environmental Studies Theory of 2nd semester examinations of 2nd year B.E. course, and while he was appearing for paper-IV Mathematics on 01.05.2009, the Invigilator/Squad snatched the hall ticket and answer script of the petitioner and booked a case of malpractice against the petitioner alleging that he found the petitioner indulging in malpractice, in that he found scribbling on his hand which related to the Mathematics paper, and prohibited the petitioner from writing the rest of the papers. Thereafter, respondent No.1 issued notice dated 24.06.2009 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why action should not be taken against him for indulging in malpractice. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner states that he appeared before the Malpractice Committee on 03.07.2009 and he alleges that the Malpractice Committee forced him to give an admission that he indulged in copying/malpractice. Thereafter, respondent No.1 issued the orders dated 20.07.2009 cancelling all the papers of April/May, 2009 Examinations. Questioning these orders, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the same as being illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to evaluate the answer sheets of the petitioner and declare the results. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.1 issued the impugned order, canceling all the papers of the petitioner, as per the Regulations under Ordinance No. VII of 1997 known as Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractices and Unfair Means) Ordinance, 1997. He submits that since the Ordinance has been replaced with Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractices and Unfair Means) Act, 1997, and no Regulations have been framed in terms thereof, providing for cancellation of all the papers when a student is found copying, respondent No.1 is not entitled to pass such an order, but only impose the penalties as provided under Section 8 of the Act, and not any other. He further submitted that even though the scribbling found on the left hand of the petitioner, does not relate to the Mathematics paper IV, much less relevant to the questions asked, and though the petitioner submitted his explanation to the said effect before the Mal Practices Committee, yet the Mal Practices Committee without considering the same, has held that the petitioner is guilty of copying, and based on such remarks, respondent No.1 issued the impugned order, canceling all the papers, which is illegal and arbitrary. He submitted that even if it is admitted that the petitioner was found copying Mathematics Paper-IV, respondent No.1 at the most could have cancelled the said paper, but not the papers written by him earlier, in which he did not copy. Hence he prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the writ petition be allowed. On behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, the Registrar of Osmania University filed counter affidavit. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on their behalf reiterating the counter averments submitted that the petitioner while writing his BE II year Mathematics IV paper on 01.05.2009, was found copying the matter written on his left hand, which related to the Engineering Mathematics subject, and therefore. Therefore, a case of malpractice was booked against the petitioner. The Malpractice Committee, which looks into cases of malpractices, issued notice to the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before the Malpractice Committee on 03.07.2009, which after examining the available evidence and after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and upon considering the letter dated 03.07.2009 given by the petitioner admitting that he had written the matter on the endorsement made by the Chief Superintendent of the Centre that before seizing the answer script, he verified the matter written on the left hand of the petitioner, which related to Engineering Mathematics-IV Examination, passed the impugned order, canceling all the papers of April/May, 2009, and no interference is called for therewith. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-University. Pursuant to the show cause notice dated 24.06.2009, issued by the Controller of Examinations, the petitioner appeared before the Mal Practice Committee on 03.07.2009, and submitted his explanation to the Controller of Examinations admitting that he had been caught by the squad on 01.05.2009 for malpractice while writing his Mathematics Paper-IV examination, but contended that he had been alleged that something has been written on his left hand, which matter has no concern with any question in the question paper and also the subject, and that they were mere calculations. The petitioner submits that he has not indulged in any copying, and even though he submitted explanation to that effect, the Mal Practice Committee without considering the same, has imposed the punishment canceling all the papers written by him previously, referring to an Ordinance. He submits that since Ordinance has been replaced with A.P. Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractices and Unfair Means) Act, 1997, respondent No.1 is not entitled to impose punishments that are provided under the Ordinance, but only impose punishments that are prescribed under Section 8 of the Act. The Ordinance No. VII referred to in the impugned order, is not the one that was replaced by A.P. Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractices and Unfair Means) Act, 1997, but relates to one issued by the Osmania University with regard to Conduct of Examinations, as is contained in the Examination Manual. Part V of the Examination Manual deals with Conduct of Examinations, and it contains a schedule of nature of malpractice and the punishment thereon. As per para 2 thereof, the punishment for any matter relevant to the examination being written on any part of the body or on the clothes worn, or in the instruments, wrappings, etc., is that the student shall be debarred from appearing at the subsequent papers of the Exam, apart from canceling the result of the examination in which he/she had indulged in malpractice. Considering the nature of punishment provided if any written matter is found on the body of the person, I am of the considered opinion that even if it is admitted that the matter written on the left hand of the petitioner related to Mathematics Paper- IV, and even if it is assumed that the petitioner had copied the same, the punishment at the most the Malpractice Committee could impose against the petitioner is to debar him from appearing at the subsequent papers of the exam apart from canceling the result of the examination in which he/she had indulged in malpractice, but they certainly are not entitled to cancel the exams written by him previously. However, what made the Malpractice Committee to recommend cancellation of all papers of the petitioner is not known, inasmuch as respondent No.1 merely stating that the Committee after examining all the evidences and available material and explanation submitted by the candidate, has decided to cancel all the papers of April/May, 2009 Examinations, means all the papers taken by the candidate on the same hall ticket in which the candidate was booked in mal practice apart from canceling the result of the examination in which he/she had indulged in malpractice, has issued the impugned order, canceling all the papers of the petitioner, written by him previously. In view of the above, without going into the issues as to whether the petitioner really indulged in the act of copying, and whether the written matter found on his left hand related to the Mathematics Paper- IV, and considering the nature of punishment provided for the nature of acts of copying alleged against the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: The impugned order, issued by respondent No.1, based on the recommendations made by the Mal Practices Committee, is set aside. The Mal Practice Committee, constituted by Osmania University, is directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner, with regard to imposition of punishment in the light of Part V dealing with Conduct of Examinations, as contained in the Examination Manual, and pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J Dated: October, 2009 KSR