The Board has the power to punish candidates for malpractices, including debarring them from further examinations, and the scope of examination extends to all stages of the examination process, including evaluation and declaration of results.

JUDGMENT - MOHTA V.A., J.:---Rule returnable forthwith.

Heard by consent.

Umesh Balpande and his real brother Pravin the first and second petitioners appeared for the Secondary School Certificate Examination conducted in March 1991 by the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Nagpur Division (the Divisional Board) the respondent. Since their result was withheld, they filed a Writ Petition No. 2029 of 1991 in this Court, inter alia raising a contention that they did not know the reason for withholding the result. Notice before admission was issued to the respondent returnable on 19th August, 1991. In the meanwhile the petitioners received communication calling upon them to present themselves in the inquiry. Learned Counsel for the petitioners fairly informed about receipt of the said communication and their willingness to appear before the Inquiry Officer. On behalf of the respondent a statement was made that inquiry would be completed by 22nd August, 1991 and decision in the matter would be announced immediately, in any case not beyond 30th August, 1991. On those statements by the parties, the petition was disposed of on 19th August, 1991 with clarification that the petitioners were free to challenge the adverse decision, if any.

2. The petitioners appeared before the Inquiry Officer. Their attention was drawn to (i) several scorings of incorrect answers, their replacement by correct answers in different ink and style of writing and (ii) certain insertions in the available spaces in the answer books of subjects History/Civics. The petitioners made a statement that nothing was written by them subsequent to handing over of the answer books to the invigilator in the examination hall. The Standing Committee came to the conclusion that the petitioners had indulged into mal-conduct of interpolation of answer papers with a view to get higher marks with the help of an examiner and consequently it imposed the punishment of cancellation of the March 1991 examination and debarring the petitioners from appearing for the next examination.

3. Aggrieved thereby this petition has been filed raising in all three points : (i) there is no power in the Board to impose punishment of disqualifying a student from appearing in further examinations; (ii) no punishment can be imposed for the mal-conduct alleged to have been committed outside the examination hall; (iii) inquiry is vitiated for not issuing a show cause notice in the prescribed form.

4. We will take up last point first. The petitioners received a telegraphic communication dated 9th August, 1991 calling upon them to appear before the Inquiry Officer on 19th August, 1991 for confidential inquiry. In Writ Petition No. 2029 of 1991 on 19th August, 1991 the following order was passed:

"Heard parties.

Shri A.M. Ghare, learned Counsel for the petitioner informs us that now he has received the show cause notice in pursuance of which he is appearing before the enquiry officer today.

Shri S.G. Aney, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, informs us that the enquiry will be over by 22-8-1991, the Standing Committee will take a decision in the matter within a period of one week and the results of the enquiry will be announced immediately, in any case not beyond 30-8-1991.

Petition disposed of accordingly. Needless to mention that the petitioners will be free to challenge the adverse decision, if any."

The petitioners on that very day came to know the reason for not declaring their results and also the purpose for which they were asked to appear before the Inquiry Officer. They agreed to appear and in fact appeared. Their attention was drawn to the objectionable portions in the answer papers. They gave their explanation to the effect that whatever was written was written in the examination hall only. The said explanations were not accepted by the Standing Committee. No prejudice to the petitioners is demonstrated in following the above procedure. In this background the grieva

Click Here to Read the rest of this document