1. Cancellation of high school examination results for use of unfair means — Challenge to validity of cancellation order under Article 226 of the Constitution. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1962 Supreme(SC) 272
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.C. DAS GUPTA AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL JJ.
Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. Allahabad and another, Appellants
Versus
Bagleshwar Prasad and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 328 of 1962.
Advocates appeared
Mr. K. L. Misra. Advocate-General for the State of Uttar Pradesh and M/S. C.B. Agarwala and K. S. Hajela, Senior Advocates (Mr. C. P. Lal, Advocate, with them), for Appellants; Mr. S. P. Sinha, Senior Advocate, (Mr. M. I. Khowaja, Advocate, with him), for Respondent No. 1
Advocates:
C.B.AGARWAL, C.P.LAL, K.L.MISHRA, K.S.Hajela, M.I.KHVAJA, S.P.SINHA
C.B.AGARWAL, C.P.LAL, K.L.MISHRA, K.S.Hajela, M.I.KHVAJA, S.P.SINHA
Courts should be slow to interfere with domestic tribunals of educational institutions regarding unfair means. Such decisions may be based on probabilities and circumstantial evidence rather than direct proof, provided natural justice is followed and the order is not entirely devoid of evidence.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Quasi-judicial proceedings - Order passed by an educational board cancelling examination results for use of unfair means - Scope of judicial review - High Court justified in quashing order if not based on any evidence - Conclusion that an order is not supported by evidence must be reached after considering whether probabilities and circumstantial evidence justify the conclusion. (Paras 4, 12)
(B) Educational Institutions - Domestic Tribunals - Adoption of unfair means - Direct evidence may not always be available; questions may be considered in light of probabilities and circumstantial evidence - Courts should be slow to interfere with decisions of domestic tribunals appointed by educational bodies unless there is justification - Tribunals must scrupulously follow rules of natural justice, but considerations governing criminal trials in ordinary courts of law are not applicable. (Para 12)
(C) Evidence - Identical wrong answers - Where identical incorrect answers are given in a manner that suggests copying or a common source, it is inappropriate to require direct evidence of the physical act of copying to sustain a finding of unfair means. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
A student's high school examination results were cancelled by an educational board on the grounds of using unfair means. The charge was based on the fact that the student and another candidate had provided identical wrong answers to a specific question. The High Court set aside the cancellation order, holding that there was no evidence to prove the student had copied from the other candidate, that there was connivance, or that an outsider had helped the candidates.
Findings of Court:
The High Court erred in assuming the charge was narrowly limited to copying from one specific candidate, whereas the charge actually encompassed copying from another, connivance, or use of a common source. The identical nature of the wrong answers, coupled with the documented atmosphere of indiscipline and rowdyism at the examination center, provided sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the board's conclusion.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the order of the educational board on the ground that it was not supported by evidence, and the extent to which courts should interfere with the findings of domestic tribunals in educational institutions.
Ratio Decidendi: In cases of unfair means in examinations, domestic tribunals are entitled to decide based on probabilities and circumstantial evidence when direct evidence is unavailable. Judicial review under Article 226 is limited; the court does not sit in appeal over the decision and should not interfere unless the order is erroneous on its face or entirely unsupported by evidence, provided the enquiry was fair and natural justice was observed.
Result: The court held that the order passed by the High Court was not justified, but refrained from setting it aside as the respondent had already passed subsequent examinations and the appellants did not seek consequential relief.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the order cancelling examination results was supported by evidence and whether the enquiry conducted by the educational board was fair and regular. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. Identical wrong answers and the disturbed examination atmosphere suggest unfair means; direct evidence of copying is not always necessary where circumstantial evidence exists. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
4. Courts should be slow to interfere with domestic tribunals' decisions on unfair means unless no evidence exists, considering probabilities and circumstantial evidence over strict criminal standards. (Para 12 )
5. High Court order found unjustified, but the court refrains from setting it aside to avoid disturbing the respondent's career. (Para 13 , 14 )
6. What is the scope of judicial review for decisions made by domestic tribunals of educational bodies?
High Courts under Article 226 should be slow to interfere with decisions of domestic tribunals unless the order is not supported by any evidence, and such evidence must include probabilities and circumstantial evidence. (Para 12 )
7. What standard of evidence is required to prove the use of unfair means in examinations?
Direct evidence is not always required; conclusions can be based on probabilities and circumstantial evidence, such as identical incorrect answers, especially when considering the general atmosphere of the examination hall. (Para 11 , 12 )
8. What procedural standards must be followed during enquiries into the use of unfair means by students?
Enquiries must be fair, provide students with adequate opportunities to defend themselves, and scrupulously follow the rules of natural justice, though they need not import all considerations governing criminal trials. (Para 12 )
9. When is an order passed by a quasi-judicial tribunal liable to be quashed under Article 226?
An order passed by a tribunal holding a quasi-judicial enquiry is liable to be quashed if it is not supported by any evidence at all, as such an order is erroneous on its face. (Para 4 )
Judgement
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. : This appeal by special leave arises out of a Writ Petition filed by the respondent Bagleshware Prasad against the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. Allahabad, and its Secretary, appellants 1 and 2 and another. By his petition, the respondent challenged the validity of the order passed by appellant No. 1 on December 5, 1960, cancelling the respondent s result at the High School Examination held in 1960. It appears that the respondent appeared for the said examination from the Nehru Intermediate College Centre, Bindki. He was declared to have passed the said examination in the II Division with distinction in Art. Thereafter, he joined Intermediate first year class in the Kulbaskar Ashram Agriculture College at Allahabad. On 3rd September, 1960 he received a letter from the Principal, Adarsh Higher Secondary School, Kora Jahanabad, from where he had appeared for the High School Examination, calling upon him to appear before a Sub-Committee to answer the charge of having used unfair means in English, Mathematics and Hindi papers. Accordingly, he appeared before the said Sub-Committee. A charge was given to him and his explanation was obtained on the said charge. This charge was based on the fact that in Hindi 3rd papers set at the said examination, the respondent had given wrong answers to Question No. 4 in precisely the same form in which the said answers had been given by a candidate whose Roll No. was 94733. The respondent s Roll Number was 94734. The respondent was shown the identical wrong answers to the said Question which were found in the two papers, and he was asked to explain about the said identity of the wrong answers. He admitted that the wrong answers appeared to be identical, but he denied that he had used any unfair means. The Sub-Committee however, was not satisfied with the explanation and reported that both the respondent and the candidate whose Roll No. was 94733 had used unfair means. As a result of the report made by the Sub-Committee, the first appellant passed an order cancelling the results of both the candidates. Both the said candidates disputed the validity of the said order in the Allahabad High Court. The petition filed by the candidate whose Roll number was 94733 was dismissed, but that of the respondent was allowed, and the impugned order passed by appellant No. 1 cancelling the result of the respondent in the high School examination for 1960, has been set aside. It is against this order that the appellants have come to this Court by special leave.
2. From the petition filed by the respondent in the High Court (W. P. No. 3469 of 1960) it appears that he challenged the validity of the impugned order on several grounds. The principal contentions raised by the petitioner against the competence and the authority of appellant No. 1 and against the regularity and fairness of the enquiry held, arose for decision before the High Court in the companion W. P. No. 3196 of 1960 also. The High Court rejected the said contentions of law in that W. P. and for the reasons recorded in the judgement in that petition, the said contentions were rejected even in the present petition. Thus, the challenge to the validity of the order made on points of law was not sustained.
3. The High Court then proceeded to examine the narrow ground of attack against the validity of the order which was made on the basis that the impugned order was not supported by any evidence at all. It appears from the judgment of the High Court that the High Court was inclined to accept this argument and it has set aside the order on the ground that it is not supported by any evidence. The correctness of this finding is seriously disputed before us by the learned Advocate-General who appears for the appellants.
4. It is common ground that the proceedings taken against the respondent in respect of the unfair means alleged to have been adopted by him at the examination, are in the nature of quasi-judicial
