[2025:RJ-JP:19697] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21618/2018 Kundan Kumar S/o Shri Ramjapo Sharma, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Village Sanoma, P.s. Bakhri, District Begusarai, Bihar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Technical Education Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Vice Chancellor, Rajasthan Technical University, Kota, Rawatbhatar Road, Dadabari, Kota (Raj.)-324009 3. Assistant Registrar (Secretary), Rajasthan Technical University, Kota, Rawatbhatar Road, Dadabari, Kota (Raj.)-324009 4. Dy. Registrar (Secretary), Rajasthan Technical University, Kota, Rawatbhatar Road, Dadabari, Kota (Raj.)-324009 5. Assistant Registrar (Conduct), Rajasthan Technical University, Kota, Rawatbhatar Road, Dadabari, Kota (Raj.)-324009 6. Controller Of Examination, Rajasthan Technical University, Kota, Rawatbhatar Road, Dadabari, Kota (Raj.)-324009 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Kuldeep Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sarthak Rastogi JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 09/05/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 27.02.2018 passed by the respondents by which the petitioner has been directed to appear in the subsequent examination for the academic year 2018-19. [2025:RJ-JP:19697] (2 of 3) [CW-21618/2018] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner appeared in the 8th Semester Examination of Bachelor of Technology and he passed the same for which the mark-sheet was issued by the University on 20.06.2017. Counsel submits that after passing of eight months, the petitioner was surprised to receive the impugned order dated 27.02.2018, wherein it was alleged that he was found using unfair means in the aforesaid examination and accordingly, the order impugned has been passed. Counsel submits that the petitioner has not used any unfair means and had it been the case of the respondents, then they could have passed the same order prior to declaration of the result. Once the result of the petitioner has been declared, the impugned order cannot be passed, after a period of eight months, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that after the examination, the answer-sheets were kept in library wherein with the help of Librarian, the OMR Sheet and answers were changed. The said fact came into the notice of the University at a subsequent stage and when an enuiry was conducted, role of the petitioner was found and accordingly, the order impugned was passed. Counsel submits that even otherwise also, this petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has statutory alternative remedy of filing appeal under Regulation 31 of the Regulations University Examinations, Rajasthan Technical University, Kota (for short, “the RTU Regulation”) hence, this petition is liable to be rejected on this ground also. [2025:RJ-JP:19697] (3 of 3) [CW-21618/2018] 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Without going into the controversy involved in the writ petition, but looking to the fact that the order impugned is appealable under Regulation 31 of the RTU Regulation, it is expected from the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority by way of filing appeal under the said provision. 6. It is well settled proposition of law that whenever alternative statutory remedy of filing appeal is available to a person, he cannot be allowed to bypass the jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority. 7. On this count alone, the instant writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file appeal under Regulation 31 of the RTU Regulation before the Appellate Authority. 8. In case, any appeal is submitted by the petitioner within a period of one month from today, it is expected from the Appellate Authority to hear and decide the same strictly in accordance with law expeditiously, within a period of two months thereafter, ignoring the period of limitation. 9. Stay application and all application(s) (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /68