Back
2015 Supreme(Bom) 451
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ANOOP V. MOHTA & K.R. SHRIRAM, JJ.
Bharat Ghanshyam Chhabada – Petitioner
Vs.
Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education, Mumbai – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 951 of 2015
Decided On : 27.3.2015
Mr. Y.P. Narvankar for the Petitioner.
Mr. R.V. Govilkar for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Yashodhan Gavanekar for Respondent No.2.
Mr. V.N. Sagar & Mr. C.P. Yadav AGP for Respondent No.3.
Headnote:Maharashtra Prevention of Malpractices of University, Board and Other Specified Examinations Act, 1982 - Section 10 Manual for Conduct of Examination and Regional Assessment Centre, Clauses 22.3., 22.3.18, 22.3.19, Format Nos. 14 and 15-AAllegations of malpractice during examination. - In absence of any show cause notice as contemplated under manual, cancellation of examination of candidate appeared and debarring from next examination unjustified. - The petitioner an engineering diploma student of respondent No. 2 institution, had taken admission on 26 July 2012 for pursuing the Computer Science course. He had successfully passed and completed I, II, III and IV Semesters of this Course with ATKT, and enrolled himself for V Semester for winter 2014 examination, which was scheduled for 21 October 2014 and subsequently he was issued hall ticket. The petitioner had appeared for the examination on the scheduled date. But on 17 December 2014, respondent No. 2 received a letter from respondent No. 1 Board stating that due to malpractice in the said examination, he was asked to appear before Wadia Institute of Technology, Pune at 11.00 am. on 23 December 2014. On 17 December 2014, respondent No. 2 issued a notice to the petitioner, as directed by respondent No. 1. On 18 December 2014, respondent No. 2 addressed a letter to respondent No. 1 and stated that no such malpractice has been committed and categorically denied all the allegations of mal-practices as made by respondent No. 1. On 23 December 2014, subsequently, the petitioner appeared before the enquiry committee. However, no opportunity of any hearing was given to the petitioner and even the result of the said enquiry was also not intimated to the petitioner.
On 24 December 2014, the petitioner was not given any document for perusal nor his explanation was asked regarding the same. On the contrary, the petitioner was compelled and pressurized to write the answers to the questionnaire. The petitioner, immediately addressed a letter dated 24 December 2014 to respondent No. 2 recording all the grievances and also stated that he has denied all the allegations at the end of the said Questionnaire. The petitioner filed writ petition and challenged order dt/- 13.1.2015 passed by respondent No. 1 Board whereby, the petitioner’s Winter 2014 examination was cancelled and further debarred from Summer 2015 Examination, on the ground of alleged malpractice during Winter 2014 examination.
Held, no show cause notice, as contemplated under the Manual/guidelines, was issued in the format so prescribed. This itself means there was no communication of the basic material information and/or documents/papers collected and/or wants to use against the petitioner by the Board. There was no even police complaint lodged in view of the specific provisions available under the Act. The petitioner, therefore, when received a copy of the impugned order was not even aware of the reasons given by the Board, though he has specifically denied the charges.
If no equal, fair and full opportunity is given to the petitioner and/or student, specifically when the consistency in statement of denial remained intact till the end, the action so taken, therefore, is in breach of provisions of law, apart from the principle of natural justice. order dated I January 2015, initially not referred the roll No. of the petitioner. The same was corrected and initialed later on, on 7 January 2015. Even in the basic paragraph, Roll No. of the petitioner is wrongly mentioned. Therefore, it shows non-application of mind by respondent No. 1 to the fact, as well as, to the law before passing the impugned order, impugned order dated 13 January 2015 set aside and further order permitting the petitioner permitted to appear in the VI semester oral and written examination.
ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.
1. Rule made returnable forthwith.
Heard finally by consent of the parties.
2. The Petitioner has challenged order dated 13 January 2015 passed by Respondent No.1 Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education, Mumbai, (for short, “the Board”), whereby, the Petitioner’s Winter 2014 examination was cancelled and further debarred from Summer 2015 Examination, on the ground of alleged malpractice during Winter 2014 examination.
3. Basic order dated 1 January 2015 was not addressed and/or specifically communicated to the Petitioner. It is stated to be communicated to the Institute-Respondent No.2 and also stated to be uploaded on the concerned Board’s Website. The communication dated 13 January 2015, is therefore, without any reason. The reasons, even if any, though are mentioned in order dated 1 January 2015, the Petitioner denied all the allegations by letter dated 15 January 2015. The process for submission of the examination forms started from 16 January 2015 and the last date was 6 February 2015. The Petitioner, therefore, filed this Petition on 27 January 2015.
4. Respondent No. 1, by affidavit in reply dated 10 February 2015 resisted the claim and placed on record the various materials including the basic order dated 1 January 2015 to justify their action/order. Respondent No.2 also by an affidavit dated 12 March 2015 filed supporting reply and submitted that an appropriate order may be passed in terms of prayers so made by the Petitioner.
5. The Petitioner is an engineering diploma student of Respondent No.2 institution, where he had taken admission on 26 July 2012 for pursuing the Computer Science course. He has successfully passed and completed I, II, III and IV Semesters of this Course with ATKT. The Petitioner had enrolled himself for V Semester for winter 2014 examination, which was scheduled for 21 October 2014 and subsequently he was issued hall ticket. The Petitioner had appeared for the examination on the scheduled date. But, on 17 December 2014, Respondent No.2 was totally shocked and taken aback when he received a letter from Respondent No.1 where it was stated that due to malpractice in the said examination, he was asked to appear before Wadia Institute of Technology, Pune at 11.00 a.m. on 23 December 2014. On 17 December 2014, Respondent No.2 issued a notice to the Petitioner, as directed by Respondent No.1. On 18 December 2014, Respondent No.2 addressed a letter to Respondent No.1 and stated that no such malpractice has been committed and categorically denied all the allegations of malpractices as made by Respondent No.1. On 23 December 2014, subsequently, the Petitioner appeared before the enquiry committee. However, no opportunity of any hearing was given to the Petitioner and even the result of the said enquiry was also not intimated to the Petitioner. On 24 December 2014, the Petitioner was not given any document for perusal nor his explanation was asked regarding the same. On the contrary, the Petitioner was compelled and pressurized to write the answers to the questionnaire. The Petitioner, being shocked with such reckless attitude of Respondent No.1, immediately addressed a letter dated 24 December 2014 to Respondent No.2 recording all the grievances and also stated that he has denied all the allegations at the end of the said Questionnaire.
6. The Manual for Conduct of Examination and Regional Assessment Center issued by the Board deals with all relevant and necessary aspects, including duties and responsibilities of officers and other staff appointed for the conduct of examination. We are concerned with the procedure of conduct of examination. The guidelines so provided for handling copying, misconduct, malpractice and impersonation cases, elaborated various steps, which need to be taken note of by the concerned officers. The duties and responsibilities of officers an
