ORDER

Leave granted

2. The two appellants, Rajesh Kumar and Harbir Singh appeared in the AIME Group B examination conducted by the respondent-Institute of Engineers (India) On June 1, 1990. Their Centre was at Tagore School, Karnal. No case of copying or any malpractice was ever noticed or reported by the supervisory staff attending the examination. somewhere in October 1990, the two appellants along with 11 other examinees received identical notices from the respondent-Institute seeking their explanation on the allegations of copying and malpractices mentioned therein. The contents of the notice were that the examiner evaluating the answer books of the examinees had reported that 13 examinees bad resorted to copying in as much as their answers to some of the questions in the examination were exactly the same and that on that basis it was thought that the examinees had adopted unfair means. The two appellants submitted their replies to the allegations stating that similarity in the answer books could be as a result of the preparation from the same text books as available in the market and that the question of copying could not arise as would be evident from the sitting plan of the examinees. Further, it was stated that none of them was close to another and all were in different rooms. The paper in question was known as Quantity, Surveying and Valuation - Second B. The plea of the examinees was negatived by the Institute and each examinee was conveyed that his results for the examination of the year 1990 stood cancelled and further debarring him from appearing in the two immediately following examinations of the Institute i.e. upto the summer of the year 1991, for adopting unfair means and malpractices.

3. Aggrieved, the two appellants joining one Kuldip Raj put to challenge the order of the Institute-respondent by means of Civil Writ Petition No. 4259 of 1991 in the Punjab and Haryana High Court which when placed before a Division Bench of that Court, was permitted to be withdrawn on November 19, 1991 with permission to file a civil suit. Thereupon, those three writ petitioners approached the Civil Court seeking to annual the offending communication and for mandatory injunction requiring the Institute to declare their results. The Institute contested the suit, Requisite issues were framed. On consideration of the pleadings and the evidences led by the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit holding that the non-speaking order of the Institute, bereft of any reason, and the conclusion that the plaintiffs were guilty of unfair means, was without any basis. Direction was given to the Institute to declare the results of the plaintiffs. The first appellate Court in appeal at the instance of the Institute reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit in holding that when the plaintiffs had appeared in the subsequent examinations after the period when their disqualification was over, no purpose would be served in decreeing the suit.

4. The second appeal before the High Court, the plaintiffs emerged successful for they were able to convince the learned Single Judge of that Court about the prejudice caused to their case when the answer books pertaining of the plaintiffs, as placed before the learned Single Judge, had not been put to the plaintiffs in the inquiry and secondly their sitting pattern/plan was such that the question of copying could never arise. Lastly, it was submitted that an extraneous factor had crept in the decision making process regarding the plaintiffs having appeared in examinations subsequent to the period of disqualification, without any basis as it was claimed that none of the plaintiffs had ever sat in any subsequent examination. In this situation, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the decree passed by the first appellate Court below directing the Institute to re-decide the matter after affording an adequate opportunity of hearing to the plaintiffs disclosing to them the