1 CGHC010321482026 2026:CGHC:37025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4292 of 2026 1 - Kanak Soni D/o Uma Shankar Soni Aged About 23 Years R/o Rajbanshi Nagar, Bailley Road, Patna (Bihar) Currently Residing At Manju Girls Hostel, Kanchan Vihar Koni Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya (A Central University) Through The Registrar Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya Bilaspur P.S. Koni, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - The Vice Chancellor Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya Bilaspur P.S. Koni Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - The Registrar Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya Bilaspur P.S. Koni, Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - The Controller Of Examinations Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya Bilaspur P.S. Koni, Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - The Unfair Means Committee Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya Bilaspur P.S. Koni Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 - Head Of Department Department Of Social Work, Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya Bilaspur P.S. Koni Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Raj Shengale, Advocate. For Respondent-Guru Ghasidas University : Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate with Shri Rohishek Verma and Ms. Ananya Pandey, Advocates. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 19/08/2026 1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner, a student of Master of Social Work (M.S.W.), Second Semester, Department of Social Work, School AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.08.20 11:46:27 +0530 2 of Studies of Social Science, Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, against the order dated 03.08.2026 bearing Order No.: 1342/प./2026 by which, his appeal/application has been dismissed while uplholding order dated 06.07.2026 bearing Order No. 1261/.प./अ.../2026, whereby the petitioner has been classified under Category "9 (I) (C)" in an alleged case of use of unfair means and consequently her entire Second Semester examination has been cancelled and she has been directed to appear in the next full examination of the concerned semester. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders dated 03.08.2026 (Annexure P/1) and 06.07.2026 (Annexure P/2) are liable to be quashed as the respondent University has mechanically classified the petitioner under Category "C" without disclosing the factual or evidentiary basis for arriving at the essential finding that the material found on the petitioner's palm was actually used by her for the purposes of the concerned examination, and such findings have been affirmed in appeal. He submits that the petitioner had specifically stated in her explanation that the markings consisted only of individual mnemonic letters and were not used while writing the answers. However, the impugned orders did not record any finding demonstrating how the essential ingredient of "use" was established against the petitioner. The classification under Category "C", in the absence of such finding, is therefore contrary to the very Regulation under which the punishment has been imposed and is harsh as well. 3. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel repersenting the University submits that the petitioner has to avail himself of the alternative remedy 3 available under Section 35 of the Central Universities Act and statutes, 2009, as such, petitioner has to approach the appropriate appellate authority and in turn, the appellate authority will consider and decide the matter in a pragmatic manner, in accordance with law. 4. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 5. From a perusal of the record, this Court finds that the consequence imposed upon the petitioner is indeed harsh inasmuch as cancellation of the entire Second Semester examination would effectively prevent the petitioner from progressing in the academic session for a substantial period. In such circumstances, the future and academic career of the examinee cannot be dealt with mechanically. There must be due consideration of the nature of the alleged misconduct, the material relied upon, the specific finding regarding the alleged "use" of unfair means and the proportionality of the punishment imposed. 6. At the same time, since a statutory appellate remedy is available to the petitioner, this Court considers it appropriate to direct the petitioner to avail such remedy before the competent appellate authority. 7. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to file an appeal under Section 35 of the Central Universities Act, 2009 and the applicable Statutes within seven working days from today. 8. Upon receipt of such appeal, the competent appellate authority shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the appeal. While deciding the appeal, the authority shall consider the matter in a pragmatic and reasoned manner, including the following 4 aspects:- (i) the factual and evidentiary basis for classifying the petitioner under Category "9(I)(C)"; (ii) whether the material allegedly found on the petitioner's palm was actually used by the petitioner during the examination, as distinguished from mere possession thereof; (iii) the explanation furnished by the petitioner regarding the nature and purpose of the markings found on her palm; (iv) the recommendations dated 10.07.2026 made by the Head of the Department, Department of Social Work (Annexure P/10); (v) the applicable Regulation for the Disposal of Cases of "Use or Attempt to Use Unfair Means" and Disorderly Conduct at an Examination by a Candidate; and (vi) the proportionality and consequences of the punishment imposed upon the petitioner. 9. Needless to say, the appellate authority shall pass a reasoned and speaking order after duly considering the material available on record and the contentions raised by the petitioner. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash