SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1960 Supreme(AP) 31

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : M.SESHACHALAPATI
K.Jagannadha Rao - Appellant
Versus
Secretary, Board of Secondary Education A.P., Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 01-27-60

In quasi-judicial proceedings, the principles of natural justice must be complied with, which includes giving the accused notice of the charges against him and an opportunity to respond.

Headnote:

EDUCATION - SECONDARY SCHOOL LEAVING CERTIFICATE EXAMINATION - MALPRACTICE - CANCELLATION OF RESULT - QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - COMPLIANCE - EVIDENCE OF MALPRACTICE - IDENTITY OF ANSWERS - RELIABILITY - JUDICIAL REVIEW - SCOPE.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a student of the VI form in the Board High School, Nandigama, sat for the S.S.L.C. Public Examination in March 1958. Allegations of malpractice were made, and the Malpractice Committee of the Board of Secondary Education found that the petitioner was guilty of malpractice in the General Science paper. The Commissioner of Government Examinations ordered the cancellation of the petitioner's marks in all subjects and debarred him from appearing for the examination for one year.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the proceedings resulting in the cancellation of the petitioner's result were quasi-judicial in nature and that the principles of natural justice had been complied with. The court also held that the evidence of malpractice, based on the identity of the petitioner's answers with those of another student, was sufficient to support the finding of the Malpractice Committee.

Issues: 1. Whether the proceedings resulting in the cancellation of the petitioner's result were quasi-judicial in nature and whether the principles of natural justice had been complied with. 2. Whether the evidence of malpractice, based on the identity of the petitioner's answers with those of another student, was sufficient to support the finding of the Malpractice Committee.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the proceedings were quasi-judicial in nature and that the principles of natural justice had been complied with because the petitioner was given notice of the charges against him and an opportunity to respond. 2. The court held that the evidence of malpractice, based on the identity of the petitioner's answers with those of another student, was sufficient to support the finding of the Malpractice Committee because the Board of Secondary Education is an expert body and its decision should be given deference.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition.

SATYANARAYANA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of certiorari to call for the records in R. C. 8 BM/58 from the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and in R. C. 8 BM/58 dated 28-8-1958 from the Commissioner of Government Examinations, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, and to quash the order dated 28-8-1958 recorded in S. S. L. Certificate of the petitioner.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was a student in the VI form in the Board High School, Nandigama. Krishna District in the year 1957-58. He sat for the S. S. L. C. Public Examination held in March 1958 with the register No. 18572. The examination was conducted at the Board High School, Nandigama, where 212 students from five neighbouring high schools sat to write their papers. The examination would appear to have been held on 12-3-1958 and the following days. On 13-3-1958, a telegram was sent by some person alleging that the examiners were helping the students by dictating answers to the questions. There was also a pseudonymous petition that the candidates writing the papers were helped by the invigilating staff to copy the answers from one another in a systematic manner. The second respondent, the Commissioner of Government Examinations, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad placed before the Mal-practice Committee of the Board of Secondary Education, answers scripts and the sketch plan of the seating arrangements in the concerned centres for its consideration. After scrutiny of the scripts forwarded and on the strength of the internal evidence afforded by the answers papers, the Committee adjudged six candidates in English paper II and four candidates in the General Science paper to be guilty of mal-practice and recommended to the second respondent that action may be taken against the above 10 candidates by inflicting the usual punishment.

( 3 ) THE petitioner was one of the four candidates in respect of whose answers in the General Science Paper, the Mal-practice Committee found that there was mal-practice. Immediately behind the petitioner, a boy named Bhaskar Rao, whose register number was 18573, sat in the examination hall. The Mal-practice Committee found that the answers of these two candidates in the General Science Paper tallied and that, therefore, they should be adjudged guilty. In conformity with the recommendations of the Mal-practice committee, the second respondent, wrote to the Chief Superintendent and Head-master of the Board High School, Nandigama, to take explanations from the petitioner and Bhaskar Rao, and holders of S. S. L. C. Nos. 18572 and 18573 respectively as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against them. By a further communication dated 2-8-1958, the second respondent, wrote to the Headmaster, Board High School, Nandigama, furnishing the details of the questions for which the answers by the two candidates under reference have been suspected of mal-practice. The Headmaster Board High School, Nandigama, was duly directed to communicate the aforesaid information to the candidates and to take their explanations. Accordingly, the Headmaster Nandigama, called for explanations from the two candidates and the petitioner gave his statement addressed to the second respondent through the Headmaster. The statement is in these terms:" In your communication R. C. 8 BM/58 dated 2-8-1958 you have stated that I have copied part II Di bits. I never copied. My number is 18572. The number of the person who sat behind me is 18573. He was nearly one yard behind my. It is, therefore, impossible for me to write after seeing his papers or after asking him. There was a watcher in front of me. I did not in any manner copy or ask the person behind me. I do not know whether K. V. Bhaskara Rao number 18573 who was sitting on bench behind me copied from my paper. I answered in the way I knew. Therefore, I request you to kindly help a Harijan like me. "by an order dated 28-8-1958, the marks in
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top