JUDGMENT
B.J. Shethna, J.
1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in umpteen number of cases has held that the High Court should be slow in interfering in education matters, more particularly when the student is debarred from appearing in the exam.
2. The petitioner is a law student against whom serious charge was levelled for attempting to use unfair means around 8:30 A. M. during the examination which was held on 24.4.2000 while answering the question paper of Legislation paper II of LL.B. Final Examination 2000.
3. These are domestic enquires where there is a little scope of interference by this Court.
4. The submission of Mr. Vyas was that though demanded, he was not given that ‘parchi’ which was tried to be used by him, is of no consequence. There was a scuffle and he was caught red handed. By the impugned order at Ex. 7, a lenient view was taken by the respondent university and cancellation of the examination of 2000 and he was debarred from appearing at any subsequent examination of 2000. In the impugned order at Ex. 7 itself, it is made clear that he is now eligible to appear at the 2001 Examination as an Ex./Private student, if he so desires.
5. Under the circumstances, there is no question to interfere with the impugned order in the writ jurisdiction by this Court.
6. Before parting, it must be stated that there is a deterioration in this profession to a great extent and such students cannot be shown any sympathy by this Court who are caught red handed while using unfair means during the exams. If this Court interferes in such type of cases, then we have to blame none else but ourselves. Speaking for myself, atleast I am not inclined to interfere with such order.
7. In view of the above discussion, this petition falls and is dismissed.
8. Stay petition is also dismissed.