1994 Supreme(J&K) 95

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
S.M. Rizvi,A.M. Mir, JJ.
Fayaz Ahmed Malik & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State Of J&K & Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 1368/1993
Decided On : 29 September, 1994

The Court held that the Notification dated January 27, 1993, was violative of Art. 14 of the Indian Constitution, as it provided for arbitrary powers to the Chairman of the Board to cancel any examination, partly or wholly, on the basis of a written report received from various sources, including anonymous information, without any provision for verification of the information.

Headnote:

NOTIFICATION - MASS COPYING - CANCELLATION OF EXAMINATION - RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - APPLICABILITY - VALIDITY OF NOTIFICATION - JUDICIAL REVIEW - SCOPE - Jammu and Kashmir State Board of School Education Act, 1975 (Act 1975).

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, who appeared in the Higher Secondary Part-II (12th class) Examination in its Annual Session of May/June, 1993, challenged the Notification No. VIG (HSE-II) 93/KD/8 dated June 29, 1993, issued by the Chairman Jammu and Kashmir State Board of School Education, which cancelled the entire examination of 24 centers falling within the territorial jurisdiction of District Pulwama. The petitioners also challenged the vires of Notification issued under No. F. 20 (Acad-BM) B/Jan/93 dated January 27,1993, in particular so far as its paras 66(a) and 66(b) are concerned.

Finding of the Court:

1. The Notification dated January 27, 1993, which amended the existing regulations governing cancellation of a particular examination on account of mass copying, outside interference or any other reason which vitiates sanctity of the examination, was held to be violative of Art. 14 of the Indian Constitution, as it provided for arbitrary powers to the Chairman of the Board to cancel any examination, partly or wholly, on the basis of a written report received from various sources, including anonymous information, without any provision for verification of the information. 2. The delegation of power of cancellation of examination to the Chairman, instead of the Board, as provided in the Act, was held to be inconsistent with the scheme of the Act and, therefore, invalid. 3. The Notification was also held to be vague and arbitrary due to the inclusion of a wide range of officers as authorized State Government Officers, who could provide information leading to cancellation of examination, without any guidelines or standards for verification of the information. 4. The Court held that the rules of natural justice, including the right to be heard, were not applicable to cases of mass copying on a large scale, as it would be impractical to give an opportunity of being heard to each individual candidate. However, the Court emphasized the need for a proper inquiry and verification of the information received by the Board before taking a decision to cancel the examination. 5. The Notification dated June 29, 1993, which was issued in pursuance of the Notification dated January 27, 1993, was also quashed as it was based on an invalid notification.

Issues: 1. Whether the Notification dated January 27, 1993, was violative of Art. 14 of the Indian Constitution and provided for arbitrary powers to the Chairman of the Board? 2. Whether the delegation of power of cancellation of examination to the Chairman was inconsistent with the scheme of the Act? 3. Whether the Notification was vague and arbitrary due to the inclusion of a wide range of officers as authorized State Government Officers? 4. Whether the rules of natural justice were applicable to cases of mass copying on a large scale? 5. Whether the Notification dated June 29, 1993, was valid?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Notification dated January 27, 1993, was violative of Art. 14 of the Indian Constitution, as it provided for arbitrary powers to the Chairman of the Board to cancel any examination, partly or wholly, on the basis of a written report received from various sources, including anonymous information, without any provision for verification of the information. 2. The Court held that the delegation of power of cancellation of examination to the Chairman, instead of the Board, as provided in the Act, was inconsistent with the scheme of the Act and, therefore, invalid. 3. The Court held that the Notification was vague and arbitrary due to the inclusion of a wide range of officers as authorized State Government Officers, who could provide information leading to cancellation of examination, without any guidelines or standards for verification of the information. 4. The Court held that the rules of natural justice, including the right to be heard, were not applicable to cases of mass copying on a large scale, as it would be impractical to give an opportunity of being heard to each individual candidate. However, the Court emphasized the need for a proper inquiry and verification of the information received by the Board before taking a decision to cancel the examination.

Final Decision: 1. The Notification dated January 27, 1993, was struck down to the extent that it delegated the power of cancellation of examination to the Chairman, provided for arbitrary powers to the Chairman, and included a wide range of officers as authorized State Government Officers. 2. The Notification dated June 29, 1993, was quashed as it was based on an invalid notification. 3. The Board was directed to form a committee of experts to verify whether the examinees of the concerned centers had resorted to copying on a large scale and to take a denovo decision in the case after receiving the report from the expert committee. 4. The Board was also directed to formulate fresh rules on the subject, taking into consideration the parameters laid down by the Court.