6 HB 129-16 HC 1250-16 already been closed. In the first place, the applicants filed this application on 18 May 2016 before commencement of the examinations on 19 May 2016. The delay in hearing the matter was occasioned by the need to give the respondents notice. In the second instance, only a few examinations, those for 19 May 2016, have been missed and there is still room to rectify that by allowing the applicants to write supplementary examinations. There is therefore no merit in the preliminary points taken. I have already made reference to the provisions of s 3(1) of the Administrative Justice Act [Chapter 10:28] which require administrative authorities to act lawfully, reasonably and fairly at all times and to s68 (1) of the Constitution which makes it a constitutional imperative for every person to receive prompt, efficient, reasonable and impartial decisions in administrative conduct. As started by MAKARAU JP (as she then was) in U-Tow Trailers (Pvt) Ltd v City of Harare and Another 2009 (2) ZLR 259 (H) 267 F-G; 268 A –B, it is no longer business as usual for all administrative authorities as there has been a seismic shift in administrative law. In any event, apart from the right to administrative justice being a fundamental right enshrined in the declaration of rights, Chapter 4 of the Constitution, the right to further education contained in s75 of the constitution is also a fundamental right. What has however occurred in this matter is that those rights have been negated through the conduct of the first respondent. While the first respondent has power to suspend a student, that power must be exercised within the framework of the law, a law which recognizes the right of the applicants to administrative justice, a concept which is now embedded in our constitution. Its elements are that official decisions must be lawful; rational in that they must comply with the logical framework created by the grant of power under which they are made; consistent, fair in that they should be arrived at impartially in fact and appearance giving the affected persons an opportunity to be heard; and be made in good faith in the sense that the official making the decision must act honestly and with conscientious attention to the task at hand having regard to how the decision affects those involved. See Telecel Zimbabwe (PVt) Ltd v Potraz and Others HH 446/15. It was never the intention of the framers of s8 (3) (d) of the Act that the first respondent would merely suspend students on unproven allegations and then do nothing about the suspension even though the section would seem to allow a suspension “indefinitely” Surely an