An administrative body entrusted with quasi-judicial duties becomes a quasi-judicial body for performing these duties and it can prescribe its own procedure so long as the principles of natural justice are followed and adequate opportunity of presenting his case is given to the examinee.

Headnote:
NATURAL JUSTICE - U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 - U. P. Education Code - Examination Committee - Cancellation of results and debarring from appearing in examination - Whether opportunity of hearing to be given to examinee - Whether Committee acts quasi-judicially.
Fact of the Case:

Three students were debarred from appearing in an examination and their results were cancelled by the Examination Committee of the appellant (U. P. Intermediate Education Board) for using unfair means in the examination. The students filed a writ petition in the High Court contending that they were not given an opportunity to be heard before the Committee took action against them, which violated the principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the Committee was acting merely administratively and was not required to give an opportunity of hearing to the students. However, the High Court allowed the writ petition on the ground that the Committee's decision was vitiated by the failure to provide an opportunity of hearing to the students.
Issues: 1. Whether the Committee was acting quasi-judicially when it exercised its powers under Regulation 1(1) of Chapter VI of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921? 2. Whether the principles of natural justice, including the maxim audi alteram partem, apply to the proceedings before the Committee?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Committee was acting quasi-judicially when it exercised its powers under Regulation 1(1) of Chapter VI of the Regulations. The Court observed that the Committee had to decide objectively certain facts which may seriously affect the rights and careers of examinees, before it could take any action in the exercise of its power under Regulation 1(1). This required the Committee to act judicially. 2. The Court held that the principles of natural justice, including the maxim audi alteram partem, apply to the proceedings before the Committee. The Court observed that the effect of the Committee's decision may in an extreme case blast the career of a young student for life and in any case will put a serious stigma on the examinee concerned which may damage him in later life. Considering the serious effects following the decision of the Committee and the serious nature of the misconduct which may be found in some cases under Regulation 1(1), the Court held that the Committee must be held to act judicially in circumstances as these.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. The Court held that the High Court's decision allowing the writ petition on the ground that no opportunity was given to the respondents to put forward their cases before the Committee was correct.

Judgment

WANCHOO J. : This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the Allahabad High Court. The brief facts necessary for present purposes are these. The three respondents were students of G. S. Hindu Intermediate College at Sikandrarao and appeared at the Intermediate (Commerce) Examination conducted by the appellant in the year 1954. On 12th June 1954, the result of the examination was published in newspapers and the three respondents passed in the second division. Thereafter they prosecuted further studies. But in December 1954, their fathers and guardians received information from the Principal of the G. S. Hindu Intermediate College that the Examinations Committee of the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) had cancelled the results of the respondents for the examination of 1954 and further that they had been debarred from appearing at the examination of 1955. Thereupon the respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court contending that the Committee had never afforded any opportunity to them to rebut the allegations made against them and that they were never informed about the nature of the unfair means used by them in the said examination and the first thing they came to know was the resolution of the Committee cancelling their results and debarring them from appearing in the examination of 1955. They therefore contended that they were entitled to an opportunity being afforded to them to meet the case against them of using unfair means at the examination before the appellant took action against them by cancelling their results and debarring them from appearing at the examination of 1955. The procedure thus adopted by the appellant was said to be in violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as they were given no opportunity whatsoever to defend themselves and to show cause against the action contemplated against them. It was further contended that the procedure adopted by the appellant violated the provisions of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, No. II of 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the U. P. Education Code, and therefore, the resolution cancelling their results and debarring them from appearing in the later examination was without jurisdiction and illegal. They therefore prayed for a proper writ or order cancelling the resolution of the appellant.

2. The appellant opposed the application and its case was that the respondents had used unfair means at the examination and their cases were reported to the Committee under the Regulations and the Committee had acted under the powers conferred on it under the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder after a thorough inquiry. It was not disputed, however, that no opportunity had been afforded to the respondents to rebut the allegations against them in the inquiry made by the Committee which resulted in the resolution cancelling the results of the examination.

3. A large number of contentions appear to have been urged in the High Court; but we are here only concerned with one of them, namely, whether the respondents were entitled to a hearing before the appellant decided to cancel the results. The contention on behalf of the respondents before the learned Single Judge was that the appellant was under a duty to act judicially and therefore the respondents should have been given a hearing before any order was passed against them. The learned Single Judge held that no duty was cast on the Committee to act judicially and there was no statutory obligation on the Committee to give an opportunity to every examinee to be heard ; therefore he rejected the petition.

4. The respondents then went in appeal which was heard by Dayal and Brijmohan Lall JJ., who however differed. Brijmohan Lall J., was of opinion that the Committee was not required to act judicially or quasijudicially when it considered cases of this kind and was acting merely administratively; he nevertheless was of the opinion that one of the rules of natural justice cont

Click Here to Read the rest of this document