A university Syndicate cannot blacklist examiners without express authority under the governing ordinance.

The petitioner, an Associate Professor who evaluated undergraduate chemistry answer scripts, was found by a fact-finding committee to have awarded marks that deviated from the moderation marks in a proportion of the papers he assessed.

The Syndicate’s resolutions dated 15 July 2022 and 31 December 2024 imposed a penalty of ₹5,000 per paper, proposed blacklisting, and appointed a further committee.

The petitioner challenged those resolutions, arguing that the governing Ordinance did not empower the Syndicate to decide the matter or provide for blacklisting.

The University acknowledged that the Ordinance did not authorize blacklisting.

Rule 5 of the Ordinance governing punishment for breach of duties, misbehaviour and indiscipline in University examination work provides that, upon receiving a committee report, the Vice-Chancellor may accept the recommendation and decide to implement it, or refer it back to the committee for review; the reviewed report’s decision is final.

Rule 6 and its schedule prescribe penalties, including ₹5,000 per paper for erratic valuation and a recommendation to the evaluator’s employer concerning deduction of two annual increments.

The Ordinance contains no provision for blacklisting and confers no relevant decision-making authority on the Syndicate.

The Court distinguished a coordinate-bench decision relied on by the University, holding that its passing observation regarding blacklisting did not authorize blacklisting in this case.

The Court found that the Ordinance assigned the relevant post-report decision to the Vice-Chancellor, who could accept the committee’s recommendation or refer the report back for review; it did not provide for referral to the Syndicate.

Nor did the Ordinance authorize the Syndicate to blacklist evaluators.

Since the University identified no other legal source for the Syndicate’s action, the resolutions exceeded the authority conferred by the Ordinance and were without jurisdiction.

The coordinate-bench decision did not cure that defect.

It left open the possibility of action by the Vice-Chancellor strictly in accordance with Rule 5 of the Ordinance and on the Fact Finding Committee’s recommendation.