the consequences and for it, even the court could have passed an order to seek a report. The hyper technicalities should not come in the way for administration of justice, otherwise despite of report adverse to the petitioners, if direction is given to continue them in the course and not to subject them with criminal case then it would mean that despite of adverse report and case of impersonation, the court has saved some one on hyper technicalities defeating the administration of justice. In view of the above, I find no merit in the review petition.In our considered opinion, in view of the earlier decision in 2014, the original order cannot be challenged and therefore, we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter in review. The observations which are made by the learned Single Judge are very clear that he has taken the consent for reaching the conclusion but that laid to irreparable loss to the appellant. Learned counsel had further averred that the FSL report dated 26.02.2015 was furnished in a cursory manner, without tendering reasonable justification and following the principles of the Indian Evidence Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure. Moreover, as per the Ordinance of the Rules for dealing with cases of unfair-means and disorderly conduct at the University Examinations, the competent and appropriate authority to debar/cancel the candidature/studentship of the petitioner from the said course would be the Syndicate and not the Registrar. Hence, it can be deduced that the impugned order is passed by an incompetent authority and has no legal sanctity. Converse to the contentions made up till now, learned counsel representing the respondents have submitted that the instant petitions are filed seeking directions from the Court for quashing of the order dated 17.11.2017 which is a consequential communication of the erstwhile communications made to the petitioner(s) for the same subject matter. Nevertheless, the petitioner(s) have not challenged the report of P.K. Singh Committee and the erstwhile orders passed by the respondent. Thence, the said prayer has no significance and the instant petitions are not tenable. According to the complainant,