Back
High Court Of Delhi
MASTER VIBHU KAPUR - Appellant
Versus
COUNCIL OF INDIAN SCHOOL CERTIFICATE EXAMINATION ANDANOTHER - Respondent
Civil 1598 of 1984
Decided On : 02/15/1985
WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT - WHETHER AN AUTHORITY WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION - PUBLIC FUNCTION - GOVERNMENTAL CHARACTER - WRITS OF CERTIORARI AND MANDAMUS - ISSUANCE - CONDITIONS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a minor, approached the court for a writ of certiorari or mandamus to quash the result of his English paper 2 in the Indian School Certificate Examination conducted by the respondent, Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations (CISCE). The petitioner alleged that he was penalized for using unfair means in the examination, but the decision was taken by an unauthorized committee and not by the CISCE. He also contended that he was not given a chance to defend himself and that the decision was arbitrary and violative of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the CISCE was an authority within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution as it was discharging a public function of imparting education and was impregnated with governmental character. The court found that the decision to penalize the petitioner was taken by an unauthorized committee and that the petitioner was not given a chance to defend himself. The court also held that the decision was arbitrary and violative of natural justice.
Issues: 1. Whether the CISCE is an authority within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the decision to penalize the petitioner was taken by an unauthorized committee? 3. Whether the petitioner was given a chance to defend himself? 4. Whether the decision was arbitrary and violative of natural justice?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the CISCE was an authority within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution as it was discharging a public function of imparting education and was impregnated with governmental character. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Schravardi, where it was held that a corporation or society can be regarded as an authority within the meaning of Article 226 if it is an instrumentality or agency of the Government. 2. The court found that the decision to penalize the petitioner was taken by an unauthorized committee. The court noted that the CISCE had not delegated the power to take such a decision to the committee and that the committee's decision was therefore void and ineffective. 3. The court held that the petitioner was not given a chance to defend himself. The court noted that the petitioner was never given any charge by the CISCE, was never heard by the CISCE, and that no enquiry was held into the allegations against him. 4. The court held that the decision was arbitrary and violative of natural justice. The court noted that the decision was based on mere suspicion and that no detailed enquiry was held.
Final Decision: The court made the rule absolute, quashed the impugned decision, and issued a mandamus to the CISCE to issue a pass certificate to the petitioner declaring him to have passed in the 10th class. The court also issued a mandamus to restore the original grading and the original marks in English Paper 2 as well as in the pass certificate.
( 1 ) THE petitioner a young boy. a minor, approaches this Court through his father Major D. R. Kapoor. for issue of a writ of certiorari or in the nature of certiorari, mandamus or in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to the respondent for quashing or setting aside the result in regard to the petitioner in paper 2 in English language and or a direction to declare the petitioner as having passed in both the English papers and awarding of a pass certificate showing that he has passed class-X examination conducted by Respondent No. 1 in 1984.
( 2 ) THE petitioner joined the Cambrian Hall School, at Dehra Dun in 1981. He was a boarder and had been residing in She school hostel. He had been well in his studies and had won several prizes and awards. In March 1984 the petitioner tuok the Indian School Certificate Examination conducted by the first respondent. Council of Indian Schools Certificate Examination at Centre No. T 353 at Dehra Dun. Throughout the examination there was no incident or allegation of use of unfair means levelled against the petitioner at the sittings of any of the papers. In the end of April 1984, the petitioner received a letter dated April 26. 1984 from the Principal of Cambrian Hall School which state that a true extract of the letter from Respondent No. I was being attached. Petitioner was required to report to the school office at 9 a. m. between May 1 and May 5, 1984 to make a "signed explanatory statement in the presence of two responsible persons about this report. " The extract of the letter from the first respondent referred to read as under:
"i. C. S. E. March, 1984 : Subject English paper 2 Report on "unfair Means" at Centre No. T 353 Our Examiners report suspected use of unfair means in answering English Paper 2. livolving the following candidates S. No, Name of Candidates Index No. 1. Vibhu Kapoor T 353/017 2. Vaneet Mago T 353/018 Report from the Co-Chief Examiner: Extract I have despatched two answer scripts to you. Mr. A Allahabadi the Examiner and I suspect collusion. I have sent the scripts in the envelope. I have found the answers of the two candidates to be mysteriously identical. (T 3531017 and T 3531018 ). Dehra Dun G. W. Mayer 18 April, 1984 Principal CAMBRIAN HALL. "
( 3 ) THE petitioner and his father went and saw the Principal of the Cambrian Hall School as directed. The petitioner was asked to give in writing whatever he wanted to say in regard to the allegation of use of unfair means in English Paper 2. On his understanding of the allegation the petitioner gave a signed statement as under :
"with reference to English Paper No. 2 Report OB Unfair Means at Centre No. T 353 involving me Vibhu Kappor, Index No. T 353/017 I declare that I have NOT helped Vaneet Mago Index No. T 353/018 in any way. As a matter of fact I have bardly come in contact with him as he is a day scholar and I have been a boarder. Similarly, he was also NOT helpful to me in any way. But it is possible that he may have overlooked into my paper when I was busy writing, as I am not very conscious of anyone around me when I am doing my paper. All I have to slate is that I am totally at a loss to understand how our papers arc indentical. This statement is given voluntarily in presesice of witnesses. "
( 4 ) THE petitioner and his father were naturally upset. . They met a number of persons while in Dehra Dun including the Principal of the School. The father of the petitioner wrote a letter of April 29, 1984 placing on record his conversation with the Principal. He also complained about the interest shown by some teachers and others of the school in the other boy involved in the incident, namely, Vineet Mago. The comunication sent by petitioner s father to the Principal was acknowledged by him by his letter of May 8, 1984. It appears that the Principal (respondent No. 2) had a high opinion about the petitioner and his conduct. Some more correspondence ensued betwee
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
