Chaitanya Haridas Tirpude vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others

2026:BHC-AUG:19535-DB
1
wp-2436-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
District : Latur.
WRIT PETITION NO.2436 OF 2026
Chaitanya S/o. Haridas Tirpude,
Age: 23 years, Occ: Education,
R/o. Degloor Road, naiknagar, Udgir,
Tal: Udgir, Dist. Latur.
…..PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400001.
2. Registrar,
Maharashtra Animal and Fishery
Sciences University, Nagpur,
Futala Lake Road, Nagpur.
3. Associate Dean,
College of Veterinary & Animal
Sciences, Udgir,
Tal. Udgir, Dist. Latur.
…..RESPONDENTS
____________________________________________________________
Mr. Sandeep Y. Mahajan, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. R. S. Wani, AGP for respondent no.1
Mr. P. G. Rodge, Advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3
____________________________________________________________
…..
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &
AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.
TH
DATED : 28 APRIL, 2026
JUDGMENT :- (Per Ajit B. Kadethankar J.)
. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard parties for final
disposal of the Writ Petition.

2
wp-2436-2026
rd
2. The Petitioner, a student of 3 year of Graduation program for
Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry is found guilty of using
unfair means during the examination. As a punishment as per the
applicable regulations, Petitioner is declared failed in the
examination, and is also held dis-entitled for the compartmental
examination. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. The Petitioner has putforth following prayers:-
“A. Rule may kindly be issued.
B. Rule may kindly be made absolute by issuing writ
of mandamus or any other writ or directions in the like
nature the result of the petitioner may the declared as
pass by quashing and setting aside the impugned
communication dated 08.01.2026 issued by Resp.3.
C. By issuing any Writ or directions in the like
nature declare the Academic Regulations For Bachelor
of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry (B.V.Sc. &
A.H.) Degree Course-2016 as ultra virus to the
Constitution of India.
D. Any other suitable relief or order for which the
petitioner is entitled in the interest of justice may
kindly be granted.”

3
wp-2436-2026
4. FACTS IN BRIEF :-
a) Consequent to the Petitioner’s score in the NEET examination,
st
he got admitted to 1 year of Graduation program for Veterinary
Science and Animal Husbandry (“the Course” for brevity), at
Respondent no.3/College.
b) The Course and the College are governed by the Respondent
no. 2 – Maharashtra Animal and Fishery Sciences University, Nagpur
( “the University” for the sake of brevity).
c) The Minimum Standards of Veterinary Education Degree
Course (B.V.Sc. & A.H.) Regulations 2016 framed by the Veterinary
Council of India are the guiding principles for the Universities in the
country imparting education in Veterinary Science, Animal
Husbandry and Fisheries etc.
d) The Veterinary Council of India falls under the Ministry of
Agriculture and Farmers Welfare (Department of Animal Husbandry,
Dairying and Fisheries), Government of India.
e) The Maharashtra Animal and Fishery Science University
follows the central Regulations of 2016. The University has adopted
those rules which are named as Maharashtra Animal and Fishery
Science University Academic Regulations for the award of B.V.Sc. &

4
wp-2436-2026
A.H. Degree Course (“the Regulations of 2016” for brevity). These
are in accordance with the Central Regulations of 2016.
rd
f) The Petitioner had to attend annual examination for 3 year of
the Course in 2024-2025. On 14.11.2025, while the Petitioner was
solving his theory question paper for the subject of Veterinary
Pharmacology and Toxicology-I (VPT-I), the Petitioner was reported
to have adopted unfair means. An inquiry was conducted by the
University in respect of Petitioner’s alleged use of unfair means
during the examination. The Petitioner, however completed the
balance examination and appeared for rest of the papers.
g) An enquiry was conducted. Conclusively, the Petitioner was
found guilty of the charge. Vide letter dated 08.01.2026, the
University declared the petitioner as ‘failed’ in the subject of VPT-I. It
was also ordered that the Petitioner shall not be entitle to appear in
the Compartmental Examination in the ensuing Session.
h) Subsequently, the student performances for the annual
examinations 2024-2025 were declared. The Petitioner was at
Sr.No.53. The Petitioner was shown ‘Pass’ in all seven subjects,
however, in the final result column, the Petitioner was recorded as
‘Fail’.

5
wp-2436-2026
5. Submissions
a) Mr. Sandeep Y. Mahajan, learned Advocate for the Petitioner
argues that once having canceled Petitioner’s performance in the
subject of VPT-I, and disentitling him for compartmental examination
in the ensuing sessions u/r 26 (6) (2) of the Regulations of 2026, the
University can not impose additional punishment u/r 26 (9) of the
Regulations of 2016. He would submit that it would be a case of
double jeopardy. As such, the Petitioner challenges the vires of the
Regulations of 2016.
b) Mr. Mahajan’s submission is, if vide order dated 08.01.2026
the University has imposed punishment to the Petitioner u/r 26 (6)
(2) of the Regulations of 2016, his entire performance for the year
2024-2025 could not be cancelled holding him fail. Thus, learned
advocate for the Petitioner seeks directions to declare the result of
Petitioner as ‘Pass’ by quashing the order dated 08.01.2026.
c) Mr. P. G. Rodge, learned advocate for the University advocates
the action imposed by the University. He would submit that the Rules
are neither inconsistent inter se nor with the Constitution of India.
He submits that the Regulations of 2016 are very clear, unambiguous
and do not overlap with each other.

6
wp-2436-2026
d) Mr. Rodge relies upon a Judgment and order delivered by this
Court in Writ Petition No.702 of 2024 dated 30.01.2024 titled as
‘Atharva Anil Kshirsagar Vs. The State of Maharashtra Through its
Secretary and Others’. He would point out that in very identical
circumstances, this court has turned down the same challenge.
6. Consideration: -
We have heard learned advocates for the respective parties at
length and have perused the pleadings in the Writ Petition and the
reply affidavit. On the basis of the documents before us and the
submissions advanced by the respective learned advocates, we
proceed to deal with the petition.
a) Although during the course of the arguments, learned advocate
for the Petitioner attempted to dispute his indictment in respect of
use of unfair means during the examination, we clarified that we are
not inclined to go into such disputed questions of the facts. The
Petitioner has been held guilty upon conduct of an enquiry by the
competent authorities in accordance with the applicable regulations
of 2016.
b) Mr. Mahajan, learned advocate then submits that he may be
heard on the point of challenge to the vires of the Regulations of
2016.

7
wp-2436-2026
c) So far as Mr. Mahajan’s objection of ‘double jeopardy’ is
concerned, we find such objection a misconceived one. This is
certainly not a case of ‘double jeopardy’. The concept of double
jeopardy is something else.
d) There could be no dispute as regards that the minimum
standards of veterinary education are governed by the Regulations
of 2016. Those regulations prescribe (I) Course of study,
(II) procedure for admission to the B.V.Sc. & A.H. Degree Course,
(III) Course curriculum that includes meaning of unfair means during
the course of examination, the procedure to deal with the unfair
means, and the penalties against the unfair means.
e) Rule 26 (6) of the Regulations of 2016 speaks thus:
Unfair means:
26. (6) If the Associate Dean of the college holds
that the student is guilty of the charge of preparation,
attempt, abetment or actual use of unfair means, he/she
shall award punishment to such student as per details
given below:

8
wp-2436-2026

f) Clause-2 of the Rule 26 (6) prescribe that ‘the student shall be
declared to have failed in the concerned subject. He/she will not be
eligible to appear in the compartmental examination of the ensuing
session.’
g) The order dated 08.01.2026 is the result of the provision at
Rule 26 (6)(2) of the Regulations of 2016.
h) Rule 26 (9) of the Regulations of 2016 however further
provide that, ‘apart from other punishments or the disciplinary
actions as per the rules of the University, a student(s) detected using
unfair means during annual examination, shall also be deemed to
have attempted and failed in that examination.’
i) Litera legis of both Rule 26(6)(2) and Rule 26(9) of the
Regulations of 2016 clarifies that neither of those is overlapping
provision. Rule 26(9) unambiguously say that the penalty thereunder
is in addition to the other punishment imposed under the rules. As
such, its not a case of twice punishment, nor a case of double
jeopardy, nor is there any inconsistency in the punishments.

9
wp-2436-2026
j) Applicability of the Doctrine of Ultra Vires necessarily depends
on the text of the enactment, rule, clause etc. as the case may be,
which allegedly stands in contravention with the substantive
provision of law, the constitution or any such substantive enactment.
k) The plain reading of the Rule 26(9) of the Regulations of 2016
abundantly starts with the wording “Apart from other
punishments………”, and further contains “shall also be……”. As
such, we have no room for any doubt in our minds that Rule 26(9) is
absolutely not an inconsistent separate provision nor it takes
exception to the Rule 26(6)(2) of the Regulations of 2016. The
punishment u/r 26(9) is an additional punishment.
l) Rule 26(6) categories of punishments corresponding to the
category of the events in which the student adopts unfair means. The
intention of the rule-making authority of the Regulations of 2016 is
absolutely clear through the text of the concerned provisions.
m) Rule 26(9) infact refers to Rule 26(4) which allows the student
to appear for the remaining papers in the examination in which he
was caught using unfair means. Its clarified in the Rule 26(9) that
the student shall be deemed to have attempted the examination and
shall be held failed.

10
wp-2436-2026
n) We are in agreement with the argument advanced by Mr.
Rodge that once a student is found guilty of using unfair means in
the examination, his result is governed by the disciplinary regulations
and not by his marks.
o) For the reasons recorded above, we do not agree with the
submissions advanced by Mr. Mahajan, learned advocate for the
Petitioner that once having shown as ‘pass’ in the subject-wise
column in the mark memo, he could not have been shown as ‘failed’
in the final result.
p) The judgment cited by Mr. Rodge, learned advocate for the
University (supra) was in respect of a student, who too, was caught
in malpractice during the examination. The challenge in the said case
was that once having declared the Petitioner as failed in the
concerned examination, he was also prevented from appearing in
the Compartmental examination. This Court dismissed the said
petition observing thus:
“9. The main thrust of the contention on behalf of the
petitioner is that the petitioner has been subjected to
dual punishment quoting Rule 26(6) of the Regulation,
2016, which deals with the unfair means.
The relevant sub-clause (6) of Rule 26 states as under:-

11
wp-2436-2026
26. (6) If the Associate Dean of the college holds
that the student is guilty of the charge of preparation,
attempt, abetment or actual use of unfair means, he/she
shall award punishment to such student as per details
given below:

10. The aforesaid clause stipulates that the student
found guilty of charge of misconduct can be awarded
punishment of declaration to have failed and
prohibition from appearing compartmental examination
of ensuing session. Mr. Savant by inviting attention of
this Court to Rule 19(19) alongwith Rule 24(4) submits
that the provision is made for compartmental
examination and candidate is allowed to provisionally
seat in the next class, even though he failed in two
subjects and on clearance of backlog, the candidate is
entitled to continue his studies in next professional
year. However, the candidate held guilty under Rule 26

12
wp-2436-2026
is made liable to dual punishment i.e. failure in relevant
subjects, so also prohibition from appearing in the
compartmental examination, which ultimately results
into loss of Academic Year.
11. We have given anxious consideration to the
aforesaid submissions. What we find from the
Regulations is that the student who failed in
examination is treated differently than the student, who
has been declared failed for adopting unfair means
during the conduct of examination. Apparently, the
student who failed to secure requisite passing marks
cannot be treated at par with the student suffered
punishment on account of unfair means. There is
rational behind providing the stringent punishment to
student found guilty of malpractices during examination
i.e. declaring him failed in the concerned subject with
prohibition to appear in the compartment examination.
The student from the first category is merely failed to
achieve requisite merit position due to deficit
performance in the examination, whereas the student
who is dealt under Rule 26 for unfair means suffers
punishment for scandalizing the process of examination.
We do not find any substance in the contention of the
petitioner that he has been subjected to double
punishment. The University Regulations are framed
based on universal system regarding conduct of

13
wp-2436-2026
examination. The punishment provided for unfair
means has to be deterrent. If the student declared as
failed in the subject while attempting unfair means in
the examination and further debarred from appearing in
the ensuing session cannot be branded as double
punishment. In fact, it is a part of one and the same
punishment that student has to suffer for his
misconduct. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer
to the observations of the Supreme Court of India in
case of Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Hotel Management,
Nutrition and Catering Technology Vs. Vaibhav Singh
Chauhan2, which reads thus:-
“Copying and cheating in examinations is like Plague. It
is a pandemic which can ruin society and the
educational system of any country. If the same is left
unchecked or if leniency is shown, the same can have a
deleterious effect. For any country's progress, the
integrity of the educational system has to be infallible.
Whether it is paper setters maintaining utmost
confidentiality, students not cheating, invigilators being
vigilant, examiners doing their job with utmost alacrity
knowing that the future of students is in their hands,
Universities and colleges not tampering with results -
the conduct of all stakeholders has to reflect
commitment and also be unblemished”
12. The aforesaid observations clearly stress on the need
to maintain purity and strict discipline in the conduct of

14
wp-2436-2026
examination deeming it necessary for overall progress
of the Nation.
13. If we look into the aforesaid observations of the
Supreme Court of India, it is difficult to accede with the
contentions of the petitioner that the punishment as
provided under Regulations is arbitrary or exorbitant in
any way. The relevant provisions appears to be in tune
with the objects sought to be achieved. The
differentiation of the student, who failed in examination
and the student whose performance is cancelled on
account of adopting unfair means cannot be treated on
equal platform. When it comes to unfair practice or
malpractice in the examination, the University or
examination authority are required to be give some
latitude in regulating functions so as to maintain purity
of the education system. The provision contained under
the Regulations providing punishment for misconduct
are apparently reasonable and consonance with object
sought to be achieved. In that view of the matter, we do
not find any force in the contention of the petitioner.
Resultantly, Writ Petition fails and stands dismissed.”
q) The case in hand is identical to the cited case (supra). In this
case also, Petitioner’s contention is that there can not be double
punishment. The only difference in both the cases is that, in the
present case punishment under Rule 26(9) is also imposed. In the

15
wp-2436-2026
cited case the petitioner therein raised his grievance against two
punishments i.e. declaration as failed in the subject and prevention to
appear in compartmental examination. Here too, the Petitioner has
objection for multiple adverse actions. We have no reason to take a
view different than what is taken in the case of ‘Atharva Kshirsagar’.
For these reasons, we discard the argument of Mr. Mahajan that the
observations in the cited case are not applicable to present case.
r) We see that proper opportunity of hearing was given to the
Petitioner to defend the charge. There is no violation of any principle
of natural justice.
s) For the reasons recorded above, we find that the Petition falls
deficit to challenge vires of the Regulations of 2016.
Hence we pass following order.
Order
I. The Writ Petition stands dismissed.
II. Rule discharged.
III. No costs.
[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.]
Rushikesh/2026