IMPORTANT POINT
In matters concerning campus discipline of educational institutions and conduct of examinations the duty is primarily vested in the authorities incharge of the institutions. In such matters court should not try to substitute its own view in place of the concerned authorities nor thrust its views on them.

Headnote:Education-Mass copying in examination-Board of Education s power to cancel examination-Jammu Kashmir State Board of School Education-Board amending Regulations introducing Regulations enabling Chairman of Board to cancel examination on ground of mass copying or outside interference or any other reason vitiating sanctity of examination-Chairman cancelling examination taking resort to amended Regulations-High Court quashing notification cancelling examination as violative of Article 14 of Constitution-Not justified-Chairman acted as delegate of Board-Any action taken or order passed by Chairman on strength of delegation made by Board cannot be faulted-In matters of discipline of educational institutions and conduct of examinations duty is primarily vested in authorities in charge of institution-Court should not try to substitute its own view-Injustice likely to be suffered by some candidates not ground to strike down notification-High Court erred in quashing notification (Jammu & Kashmir Board of School Education Act, 1975).
       Held : On a fair reading of the relevant provisions of the Act as noted above, the position is manifest that the Board is constituted to advise the State Government in policy matters relating to education and also to regulate establishment of educational institutions and to ensure proper functioning of such institutions. The Board is also vested with the power to conduct examinations for awarding certificates and diplomas to successful candidates. Power is vested in the Board under the Act to ensure proper conduct of examinations. Under the provisions of the Act, Board is vested with power to constitute committees for different purposes, to delegate any of its (Board) functions in favour of the committee and also to delegate any of its functions in favour of any officer of the Board. If the Board in its wisdom considered it advisable to delegate the power to take action in the matter of mass copying at any examination centre in favour of its Chairman no exception can be taken to it on the ground of want of power. In that case the Chairman acts as a delegate of the Board. Any action taken or order passed by the Chairman on the strength of the delegation made by the Board cannot be faulted on the ground of lack of competence or authority. (Para 16)
       While judging the authority or otherwise all steps taken by authorities of the Board to take action against candidates taking resort to mass malpractice it should be brone in mind that the Board is entrusted with the duty of maintaining higher standards of education and proper conduct of examinations. It is an expert body consisting of persons coming from different walks of life who are engaged in or interested in the field of education and have wide experience. The decision of such an expert body should be given due weightage by Courts. (Para 18)
       In matters concerning campus discipline of educational institutions and conduct of examinations the duty is primarily vested in the authorities incharge of the institutions. In such matters Court should not try to substitute it own views in place of the concerned authorities nor thrust its views on them. That is not to say that the Court cannot at all interfere with the decisions of the authorities in such matters. The Court has undoubtedly the power to intervene to correct any error in complying with the provisions of the Rules, Regulations or Notification and to remedy any manifest injustice being perpetrated on the candidates. In judging the validity a notification containing provisions regarding steps to be taken when a report of mass-malpractice is received it is to be kept in mind whether the provisions contained in the notification are relevent for achieving the purpose for which the notification is issued and if it is found that the notification is relevant for and has a nexus with the purpose to be achieved then the notification cannot be said to be arbitrary and discriminatory. The High Court has failed to keep this principle in view while considering the validity of the notification in question. A notification cannot be struck down as discriminatory merely because in implementing the same injustice is likely to be suffered by some candidates. (Para 20)
       The Board and its Chairman were within their powers and authority in issuing the notifications dated 27.1.1993 and 29.6.1993 respectively. The High Court was clearly in error in quashing the said notifications as beyond the power of the Board and its authorities. The impugned judgment does not show that the decision to strike down the two notifications is based on grounds sound in law and justified on facts. It is our considered view that the judgment of the High Court is unsustainable and has to be quashed. (Paras 17 and 20)

JUDGMENT

Mohapatra, J.-Feeling concerned about the menace of mass copying in examinations the Jammu and Kashmir State Board of School Education (for short the Board ) made certain amendments to the existing regulations governing cancellation of examinations on account of mass copying, outside interference or any other reason which vitiates the sanctity of examination. By the said amendment regulations 66(a) and 66(b) were introduced which read as follows:

"66(a) Nothwithstanding anything contained in these regulations the chairman may, on receipt of written report from Superintendent/s of any authorised State Government Officer or Officer/s of the Education Department, cancel any examination/s either partly or wholly for reasons to be recorded in writing whenever he is of the opinion that any examination conducted by the Board at any centre has been vitiated on account of mass copying by examinees or outside interference or any other reason which deprives examination/s of its sanctity.

66(b) The Chairman may also for reasons to be recorded in writing, cancel any examination/s either partly or wholly on the basis of any report or information from any source other than those mentioned above including any anonymous information in case he is satisfied that the sanctity of the examination/s has been adversely affected on account of mass copying by the examinees or outside interference at any examination/s centre/s for any other reason vitiating the process of conduct of examination/s.

Provided that the Chairman shall before acting upon any such information received from any source under clause 66-b above have the same verified by the subject experts/officers of the Board or any authorised Government Officer or Officer of the Education Department. The result of the examination/s of any such centre/s shall remain withheld pending verification of the above information (Clause 66-b) received by the Chairman and his final order thereon.

Provided further that the cancellation of any examination/s under 66(a) and 66(b) shall not prevent the Board from initiating appropriate proceedings against any student/s who may be reported to have used unfair means by the concerned examination staff appointed at the centres.

Provided also but subject to the foregoing proviso, the examinees of any such centre/s shall be allowed to appear in the subsequent Examination/s conducted by the Board, if otherwise eligible under rules".

2. The amending notification was issued by the Secretary of the Board in terms of the decision taken by the Board at its meeting held on 20-1.1993. Subsequently, the Chairman of the Board issued to the notification dated 29.6.1993, cancelling the entire examination of Higher Secondary Part-II for regular candidates held in May-June session 1993 in the centres stated therein on account of mass copying and violation of sanctity of the examination. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Chairman some candidates who had appeared in the examination at the centres in question filed writ petition in the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir. The High Court by the common judgment rendered on 29.9.1994 allowed all the cases. The High court struck down certain provisions of the Notification dated 27.1.1993; quashed the Notification dated 29.6.1993 and directed the Board to form a committee of experts who shall, after examining the answer scripts, verify as to whether or not the examinees of those centres resorted to copying on large scale, with the further direction that the committee shall record their reasons for coming to the conclusions. This exercise, as directed by the High Court was to be undertaken within a period of forty five days from the date of the judgment. The High Court observed that for the purpose, the Board authorities can also utilise the services of experts outside the valley if they so choose. The High Court further ordered that the Board will after receiving the report from the expert committee take decision in the ca

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2000 Supreme(SC) 218

Cases Referred (2)