DR. RAJESH GURUNATH KALKHAMBKAR vs KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY,

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16324
WP No. 103740 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020093552025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

WRIT PETITION NO. 103740 OF 2025 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

DR. RAJESH GURUNATH KALKHAMBKAR,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
ASSOCIATE PROF AND HEAD,
DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY,
KARNATAKA SCIENCE COLLEGE,
DHARWAD - 580 001.





…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.V. GUNJAL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY,
PAVATE NAGAR,
DHARWAD - 580 003,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.






2. REGISTRAR EVALUATION
KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY,
PAVATE NAGAR,
DHARWAD - 580 003.

Digitally
signed by
SAROJA
HANGARAKI
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
SAROJA
HANGARAKI
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA A. MALI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A. HOLD THAT
REFERRING THE REPORT OF THE FACT FINDING COMMITTEE, AS PER
TH
ANNEXURE A DATED 24 MARCH 2022, TO THE SYNDICATE IS
ERRONEOUS AND CONTRARY TO THE RULE 5 OF THE ORDINANCE
GOVERNING THE ACTS OF PUNISHMENT FOR BREACH OF DUTIES,
MIS BEHAVIOR AND INDISCIPLINE BY PERSONS INVOLVED IN
UNIVERSITY EXAMINATION WORK. IS UNJUSTIFIED AND UN
SUSTAINABLE AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16324
WP No. 103740 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020093552025


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

ORAL ORDER


1. Petitioner, who is presently working as Associate Professor,
Head, Department of Chemistry, Karnataka Science
College, Dharwad, is before this Court being aggrieved by
the recommendation/resolution dated 15.07.2022 and
recommendation/resolution dated 31.12.2024 produced at
Annexures-C and G respectively to the writ petition passed
by the Syndicate of respondent No.1-University, in terms
of which apart from blacklisting the petitioner, has been
directed to impose punishment of recovery of ₹5,000/- per
answer sheet and has further by resolution dated
15.07.2022 has appointed another Fact Finding
Committee.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was assigned
the task of evaluating chemistry papers at both
undergraduate and postgraduate level along with 15
others for evaluating B.Sc III semester chemistry papers
for the examination conducted during August-September
2021.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16324
WP No. 103740 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020093552025



3. In view of the impending COVID Pandemic there was
certain ambiguity in valuation methodology. There were
certain informal instructions to evaluate papers liberally
while others believed the assessment to be strict. This
ambiguity had impacted evaluation of the answer scripts of
the said COVID Pandemic period. Students affected had
applied for revaluation. Finding variation in the marks
between second valuation, the third valuation was
undertaken as per the prevailing ordinance, which further
point out variations in the marks awarded in the original
valuation and revaluation. A committee in this regard was
formed at the direction of Vice-Chancellor to find out the
anomalies which had occurred in the valuation. The said
Committee had submitted report on 24.03.2022 stating
that there were indeed anomalies in evaluation. The said
report also contained list of names of evaluators in which
.No.
petitioner's name was reflected at Sl 5. Petitioner had
evaluated 299 papers and had awarded 17 marks less than
the moderate marks in 4 papers and had given 17 marks
more in 36 papers.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16324
WP No. 103740 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020093552025



4. It also indicated there were deviation in 13.37% of papers
evaluation made by him. The said report was placed before
the Vice-Chancellor. Vice-Chancellor instead of accepting
the said report or sending for revision, had forwarded the
same to the Syndicate for its consideration.

5. By Resolution dated 15.07.2022, Syndicate accepting the
report recommended, imposed penalty of ₹5,000/- per
paper and further recommended for blacklisting where the
variation was found to be more than 10% of the papers
evaluated by the petitioner.

6. The said resolution was intimated to the petitioner during
January-2023. A representation was given to the petitioner
explaining the circumstances and requested for withdrawal
of the resolution. In response to which the petitioner was
given a hearing by the Fact Finding Committee. After
hearing the petitioner and other aggrieved persons, the
Fact Finding Committee submitted a revised report on
05.04.2024 refixing the margin of variation in marks at
+/- 17% to +/- 10%. Even the said report was not
accepted by the Vice Chancellor.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16324
WP No. 103740 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020093552025



7. In the meanwhile, respondent Syndicate on 15.07.2022
had taken up the matter in the light of representations
made by the aggrieved evaluators and the Fact Finding
Report of 05.04.2024 and resolved to form another
committee to decide the amount of penalty to be collected
from the evaluator and the period for which they should be
blacklisted.

8. It is these two resolutions, which the petitioner has put in
question in this petition.

9. Counsel for petitioner taking this Court though the records,
more particularly to the Ordinance Governing the Acts of
Punishment for Breach of Duties, Misbehavior and
Indiscipline by the Persons involved in University
Examination Work, draws attention of this Court to Rule 5
providing for procedure for action for submitting inquiry
report.

10. The said Rule 5 reads as under:
“R.5: Procedure for action after submitting the
Enquiry Report:
a) The Registrar (Evaluation) shall submit the
Committee report/s to the Vice-Chancellor for

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16324
WP No. 103740 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020093552025


administrative approval for immediate intimation to the
individual candidate.
i. The Vice Chancellor may accept the recommendation of
the Committee and decide to implement the
recommended action immediately or it may be referred
back to the Committee, for review the specific remark/s.
In such cases, the committee shall review the report
within 07 days.
ii. The decision of such reviewed report shall be final.
b) The Registrar (Evaluation) shall intimate the final
decision by Registered Post to the concerned Persons and
a copy of the same shall be sent to the Head of the
concerned Institutions for needful action within 07 days.”


11. Thus, referring to Rule 5(a)(i), counsel for petitioner
submits that upon receipt of the recommendation by the
Committee, Vice-Chancellor was required either to accept
the recommendation of the Committee and to decide to
implement the action of recommendation or to have
referred back to Committee for review. That there is no
provision provided under the Ordinance for referring the
matter to the Syndicate.

12. Further, he refers to Rule 6 of the Ordinace, which
provides scale of punishments for guilty after enquiry
under Rule 3(i). In that, pointing out to the nature of
indiscipline/breach of examination duties, referring to

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16324
WP No. 103740 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020093552025


Erratic Valuation at Sl.No.5, he submits the punishment
prescribed is ₹5,000/- per paper and recommendation to
the concerned employer for deduction of 2 annual
increment of the staff. Thus, he submits that even if the
petitioner is held guilty of erratic valuation, the Ordinance
does not provide for reference of the matter to the
Syndicate and the Ordinance also does not authorize the
Syndicate to pass the resolution as done in the instant
case. Therefore, seeks for allowing the petition.

13. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2
referring to the statement of objection submits that the
resolution has been passed as per the scale of punishment
for guilty after enquiry provided in Sl.No.8 of the schedule.
He submits any other case which is not covered by the list
provided thereunder, the enquiry committee has power to
decide the punishment looking into the nature and
circumstance of the malpractice subject to final
observation of the Registrar (Evaluation).

14. On a repeated query by this Court, he fairly submits that
the Ordinance neither provides for blacklisting nor does it

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16324
WP No. 103740 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020093552025


authorize the Syndicate to pass any such resolution
blacklisting as being done. However, he relies upon the
judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP
No.1120/2022 C/w. WP No.1160/2022 disposed of on
17.03.2022 and referring to observation made in
paragraph No.9 of the said judgment, submits that this
Court has recognized blacklisting the delinquent examiner.

15. Heard. Perused the records.

16. Fact Finding Report produced at Annexure-A indicate that
during the evaluation, there has been variation of about 17
marks. Said variation has not only been committed by the
petitioner but also host of other examiners. Thus, it is a
case of erratic evaluation.

17. Relevant portion of Rule 5 of the Ordinance produced at
Annexure-B to the petition extracted herein above,
indicate that upon the report submitted by the Committee,
the Vice-Chancellor alone authorized either to accept the
recommendation or to decide to implement the
recommendation immediately or refer it back to the
committee for review. The Ordinance further as noted

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16324
WP No. 103740 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020093552025


above provides punishment of ₹5,000/- per paper and
recommendation to concerned employer for deduction of 2
annual increment of the staff. There is no provision for
blacklisting any evaluator or examiner.

18. Further, nowhere does the Ordinance provide any power or
authority to the Syndicate in the matter. Such being the
case, the reference of the matter by the Vice-Chancellor to
the Syndicate is unauthorized and the resolutions passed
as per Annexures-C and G by the Syndicate proposing to
blacklist the petitioner apart from imposing payment of
₹5,000/- is also one without jurisdiction and suffers from
nullity.

19. Reliance placed on by the counsel for the respondents on
the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP
No.1120/2022 C/w. WP No.1160/2022 is of no avail
inasmuch as this Court had merely made a passing remark
and the same cannot be the basis for imposing blacklisting
as sought to be done in the instant case.

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16324
WP No. 103740 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020093552025



20. Respondent-University not having pointed out any other
legal provision, justifying the resolution, petition is
allowed .

21. Impugned resolutions are quashed.

22. Notwithstanding quashing of the impugned resolutions, it
is open for the Vice-Chancellor to take necessary action as
strictly contemplated under Rule 5 of the Ordinance upon
the recommendation of the Fact Finding Committee, if so,
advised.

23. Pending applications, if any, are rejected.


Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE



SH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5