The executive council was divided over the recommendation of the ERC with seven of the 17 members present not accepting the decision. Many expressed unhappiness over the way the ERC had handled the matter.

Earlier on May 25, the five member Committee had said that Rai was caught using a footscale, inscribed with notes and awarded him the 'F+0' penalty, which failed him in all subjects .

Noted lawyer Sudhir Nanavati, a member of the executive council said: “The Reforms Committee did not follow the proper procedure as laid down under the University rules. The statements of the three examination supervisors are not in conformity. In my opinion the ERC could not have come to this conclusion on the basis of the evidence before them.”

In its report, the ERC quoted class supervisor that the footrule had something written on it. Elsewhere, the senior examination supervisor said in his statement that was a note pasted on the foortule.

Nanavati said the remarks by some of the ERC members that Rai had accepted before them that his footrule had written matter not related to the exam, was absent from the report. “We had the report of the committee before us and it did not mention any such statement. Ultimately we are guided by the written report and in this case it was defective on many counts,” he said.

Under Ordinance 134 of the GU Act, the decisions of the Executive Council are final and cannot be questioned even in courts. Legal experts, however, opine that it is the duty of the university to follow the procedure as laid down and that any departure from it can be challenged in the High Court.

Rai had filed a writ petition in the Gujarat High Court and challenged the recommendations on the grounds that he was not given the necessary documents pertaining to the case. He said it violated the principles of natural justice.

The High Court had given time to the GU to decide on the matter. The next hearing is on June 24. Rai could not be contacted for comments despite several attempts.