S. Muralee Krishna, J.

1. These Writ appeals are filed by the appellant under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, challenging the judgments dated 14.01.2026 in W.P.(C) No.45538 of 2025 and 27.02.2026 in W.P.(C) No.6246 of 2026, respectively, passed by the learned Single Judge in those writ petitions filed by the appellant. For convenience of reference, the parties and documents are referred to as in W.A.No.624 of 2026.

2. The appellant is a student of the Bachelor of Pharmacy (B.Pharm) Degree course at Mar Dioscorus College of Pharmacy, Thiruvananthapuram, affiliated to the Kerala University of Health Sciences (‘KUHS’ for short). When the appellant was attending the first examination of the seventh semester, B.Pharm Degree supplementary examinations for the subject Instrumental Methods of Analysis, conducted on 25.08.2025, an eraser containing handwritten markings was seized from him. Pursuant to the surrender of that objectionable material and giving a written statement of apology by the appellant, he was permitted to attend the remaining examinations in that semester. Thereafter, the appellant was called for a hearing before the 172nd meeting of the Malpractices and Lapses Enquiry Committee (M&LEC) scheduled on 27.09.2025. Subsequently, by Ext.P7 order dated 30.10.2025, the appellant was disqualified from appearing in the seventh semester B.Pharm examination for the next chance and his appearance in the entire seventh semester supplementary examination of August 2025 was cancelled. The punishment imposed on the appellant was stated to be under Chapter XII, Clause I(A), 1(1) of the KUHS Examination Manual. Aggrieved by Ext.P7 order, the appellant approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.45538 of 2025 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

                  “a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, calling for the records leading to the issuance of the Impugned Order U.O.No: 795/2025/exam/KUHS dated 30.10.2025 (Exhibit P7) and to quash the penalty of disqualification and debarment from appearing in the subsequent chance for the Seventh Semester B.Pharm Degree Examinations as being grossly disproportionate;

                  b. Issue a Writ of Declaration or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, declaring the relevant rule/proviso of the KUHS Manual/Regulations that mandates or permits a blanket cancellation in the whole examination and debarment from the next chance, for minor/technical possession of crib notes as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India;

                  c. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, commanding the Respondent University to reduce the penalty to a proportional one, such as the cancellation of the specific paper (Instrumental Methods of Analysis) only.”

3. On 17.12.2025, when W.P.(C)No.45538 of 2025 came up for consideration, the learned Single Judge, by an interim order, directed the 1st respondent, KUHS, to permit the appellant to remit the fees and appear for the seventh semester supplementary examinations in December 2025. It was made clear in that order that the permission granted was provisional and would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. The results of the examination were not to be published for the time being.

4. In W.P.(C)No.45538 of 2025 on behalf of the respondents, a statement dated 11.12.2025 was filed opposing the reliefs sought for. Thereafter, the appellant produced Ext.P9 document along with I.A.No.1 of 2026. To the statement filed on behalf of the respondents, the appellant filed a reply affidavit dated 07.01.2026.

5. After hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge by the judgment dated 14.01.2026, allowed W.P.(C)No.45538 of 2025 by setting aside Ext.P7 order under challenge and directed the 1st respondent to issue showcause notice on the basis of the recommendations of the M & LEC and proceed pursuant there to after granting an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. It was clarified that the result of the seventh semester supplementary examinations attended by the appellant in pursuance of the interim order dated 17.12.2025 shall be published, subject to the outcome of the decision to be taken by the Governing Council as directed in that judgment.

6. Pursuant to the judgment in W.P.(C)No.45538 of 2025, a showcause notice was issued to the appellant by the 1st respondent, and the appellant submitted a reply refuting the allegations. Meanwhile, on 05.02.2026, the College issued Ext.P10 circular informing the students about the last date for payment of examination fees for the eighth semester of B.Pharm examinations without fine as 17.02.2026 and directed them to remit the fees before 13.02.2026. The examination was scheduled to commence on 02.03.2026. Being unable to register for the eighth semester examination, the appellant filed W.P.(C)No.6246 of 2026, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs :

                  “i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to forthwith enable the Petitioner to register for the Eighth Semester B.Pharm Degree Examination (March 2026) and permit him to remit the prescribed examination fees;

                  ii. Declare that the Petitioner is entitled to register and appear for the Eighth Semester B.Pharm Degree Examination in the absence of any subsisting order of disqualification or punishment;

                  iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the Respondents from preventing the Petitioner from continuing his academic course and appearing for the Eighth Semester B.Pharm Degree Examination on the basis of Exhibit P7 order, which stands set aside.”

7. On 27.02.2026, when W.P.(C)No.6246 of 2026 came up for consideration, the learned Single Judge dismissed the same, holding that since the appellant’s result in the seventh semester examination has been put on hold and is made subject to the outcome of the decision of the Governing Council as directed in W.P.(C)No.45538 of 2025, a lenient view cannot be adopted to enable the appellant to write the examination contrary to the regulations, especially in the case of such serious allegations of malpractice. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed W.A.No.624 of 2026.

8. W.A.No.623 of 2026 is filed with a delay of 24 days in filing that appeal. By the order dated 10.03.2026 in C.M.Application No.1 of 2026, we condoned the said delay, leaving open the contentions of the learned Senior Counsel for the University regarding the maintainability of that writ appeal.

9. On 10.03.2026, when W.A.No.624 of 2026 was taken up for consideration, the learned Senior Counsel for KUHS, as instructed by the learned Standing Counsel, would submit that the hearing as directed in the judgment of W.P.(C)No.45538 of 2025 was conducted by the Controller of Examinations on 28.02.2026 and as authorized by the Governing Council, the Vice Chancellor will take a decision in the matter within two or three days.

10. Heard Adv.Akhil Suresh, the learned counsel for the appellant and Adv.P.Sreekumar, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents.

11. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the seventh semester supplementary examination attended by the appellant in August 2025 was cancelled by Ext.P7 order, relying on the guidelines in Clause 1(1) of Chapter XII of KUHS Examination Manual. As per the contentions of the respondents, the appellant had given an apology letter admitting the malpractice at the time of the first examination itself. If that is the case, there is no question of permitting the appellant to attend the remaining examinations held on 27.08.2025, 29.08.2025 and 01.09.2025. The learned Counsel vehemently argued that by permitting the appellant to attend those examinations, the University has deemed to have condoned his sin in the first examination, and moreover, the University is estopped from taking a different stand in a later stage. The learned counsel submitted that Ext.P7 order passed without a showcause notice is a nullity, and hence the learned Single Judge ought not to have given one more opportunity to the university to take a decision after curing the defect by issuing the showcause notice. The appellant could not attend the eighth semester examination since his results of the seventh semester examinations were withheld, which he had attended in pursuance of the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant was not permitted to register for the eighth semester examination under the premise that he failed to clear the seventh semester examination. In fact, his results were not published, and hence, it cannot be considered that he failed in the seventh semester examinations. Since the disciplinary proceedings did not attain finality, preventing the appellant from attending the eighth semester examination will cause irreparable prejudice to him.

12. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents would submit that the punishment provided in Ext.P8 KUHS Examination Manual is one intended to deter the students from adopting such malpractices in the examination. As per Ext.P3 theory examination timetable, it can be seen that the seventh semester examinations are named as a whole, and therefore, the stipulation to cancel the whole examination means it is the cancellation of the examinations of all the subjects. Though the appellant gave an apology letter and confessed the bringing of objectionable material, the university has to follow some procedure before taking a decision based on Ext.P8 KUHS Examination Manual. Therefore, there is no meaning in the argument that since the appellant gave an apology letter, no further enquiry is necessary, and by permitting him to attend the remaining examinations, his malpractice is deemed as condoned. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in pursuance of the directions in the judgment dated 14.01.2026 passed in W.P.(C)No.45538 of 2025, the university has conducted a hearing and final orders have been passed, which will be communicated to the appellant within a few days. As per the KUHS Examination Manual, the appellant cannot be permitted to write the eighth semester examination without clearing the seventh semester examination.

13. We have carefully perused the pleadings and materials on record and appreciated the rival submissions made at the Bar. On 25.08.2025, while the appellant was attending the first examination of the seventh semester B.Pharm Degree course, an eraser allegedly containing handwritten markings was seized from his possession. He subsequently gave an apology letter as stipulated in Clause 1 of Chapter XII of Ext.P8 KUHS Examination Manual. The said Clause read thus:

                  “1. In case of mere possession shall be disqualified from appearing in the university examination at the next chance besides cancellation of his appearance in the whole examination (all subject) in which malpractice was detected.

                  2. and if found having copied will be disqualified for a period up to the next two chances besides cancellation of his appearance for the whole examination (all subjects) in which malpractice was detected.

Note: On detection, the candidate shall be permitted to write the examination only after he/she has surrendered such objectionable materials and has given a written statement of apology detailing the nature of detention and the materials used, to the Chief Superintendent. In case of failure to comply with the above requirements, he shall be expelled from the examination hall by the CS after seizing the materials and his/her hall ticket/admit card. A detailed report shall also be submitted by the CS to CE on the same day.”

14. Though the appellant was disqualified from appearing in the seventh semester B.Pharm examination for the next chance and his appearance in the entire seventh semester supplementary examination was cancelled by Ext.P7 decision of the University, the said order was set aside by the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.45538 of 2025, for the reason that the showcause notice as contemplated was not issued to the appellant. Now, a hearing as directed in that judgment was conducted by the university and as per the submission of the learned Senior Counsel, a decision has also been taken by the university. While going through Clause 1(1) of Chapter XII of Ext.P8 KUHS Examination Manual, it is clear that if possession of an objectionable material is proved, the university is entitled to cancel his appearance in the whole examination of that semester in which the malpractice was detected. As per the KUHS Examination Manual, a student who has not passed the seventh semester examination is not entitled to attend the eighth semester examination. Now, after the filing of the writ petitions and writ appeals, the eighth semester examinations in respect to which the relief sought by the appellant were also over. In such circumstances, we find that the above two writ appeals became infructuous. Since a fresh decision is submitted as passed by the university pursuant to the direction in the judgment dated 14.01.2026 in W.P.(C)No.45538 of 2025, the remedy open to the appellant is to challenge the said decision, if the same is against him.

15. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, in the light of the discussions above, we find no ground to hold the impugned judgments of the learned Single Judge as perverse or patently illegal, which warrants interference by exercising appellate jurisdiction.

                  In the result, these writ appeals stand dismissed; however, without expressing anything regarding the right of the appellant to challenge the decision that would be taken by the university pursuant to the direction in the judgment dated 14.01.2026 in W.P.(C)No.45538 of 2025, in accordance with law, if found necessary.