Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1711
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
Ms. Sansita D/o Dr. Sanjay Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Central Board Of Secondary Education Through Its Deputy Secretary (CONF) - Respondent
WPC No. 2858 of 2025
Decided On : 08-08-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Parth Jalan, Advocate Ms. Shreya Shukla, Advocate
For the State :Mr. Sushant Kumar, A.C. to A.G., Mr. Ayush, Advocate
Possession of a mobile phone during an exam does not equate to cheating if not used, and due process must be followed to ensure fairness in disciplinary actions.
Headnote:(A) Central Board of Secondary Education Unfair Means Guidelines - Clause 3.4 - Possession of mobile phone in examination hall leading to cancellation of examination results - Petitioner did not use the phone and immediately attempted to hand it over to invigilator - Procedural impropriety in handling unfair means case; insufficient opportunity to present defense. (Paras 5, 11, 24, 25)
(B) Natural Justice - The principles of natural justice were violated in the proceedings against the petitioner due to lack of clear charges in the notice and failure to provide adequate defense opportunity. (Paras 8, 20, 21)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a student, was found in possession of a mobile phone during an examination but claimed it was a mistake; she did not utilize the device inappropriately. Following an unfair means charge, her results were canceled, barring her from future exams.
Findings of Court:
The Court found informing the invigilator about the mobile phone demonstrated intent not to cheat, thus the severe penalty was unwarranted and overly harsh.
Issues: Whether mere possession of a mobile phone constituted sufficient grounds for severe sanctions, and if the due process was followed in addressing the unfair means charge.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court concluded that procedural flaws and evidence of honest intent merit consideration, ruling that the petitioner’s actions did not warrant cancellation of examination results.
Result: The impugned order was quashed; the petitioner’s results must be declared.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks to challenge examination cancellation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments focus on unfair means and procedural fairness. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. respondent argues importance of examination integrity. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. possession of mobile phone vs. actual use. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. court questions consistency of allegations against the petitioner. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. petitioner’s disciplined record supports her case. (Para 24 , 25) |
| 7. judgment quashes cbse's actions and orders result declaration. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
JUDGMENT :
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
1. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the order as contained in Memo number CBSE/RO/PTN/UFM/Main/ 10th/7-2025/7506 dated 31.05.2025, whereby the respondent no. 1 has cancelled the Senior Secondary Certificate Examination (SSCE)-2025 of the petitioner in all the subjects also debarring her from appearing in Board’s next year examination, 2026. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent no. 1 to declare the result of the petitioner for 12th Board examination, 2025.
2. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was a student of Delhi Public School, Dhanbad (Respondent No. 3) from where she appeared in SSCE-2025. The centre of the said examination was at DAV Public School, BCCL, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad. The examination of subject-English Core (Subject Code-301) was scheduled on 11.03.2025. The time of commencement of the examination was 10:30 AM and entry was not permitted after 10:00 AM. On the said date, the petitioner was little late in getting ready for examination and as such in hurry, she inadvertently forgot to keep her mobile phone in her bag and carried it to the examination hall.
3. It is also submitted that as soon as the petitioner realized her mistake, she immediately switched off the mobile phone and tried to hand it over to the concerned assistant invigilator. Despite the fact that petitioner was not found using the said phone, the authorities gave her a new answer sheet and she wrote down her answer in the same. Thereafter, the petitioner continued to appear in all other papers of the SSCE-2025.
4. It is further submitted that on 29.04.2025, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice through the respondent no. 3, whereby she was informed that an Unfair Means case was registered against her in which she was called upon to appear before the ‘Unfair Means Committee’ members on 02.05.2025 at 11.30 AM. The petitioner attended the said meeting where she stated that she had inadvertently carried the mobile phone inside the examination hall during examination of the English Core subject pertaining to SSCE-2025, however, she had not used the same in course of examination.
5. It is also submitted that vide Memo No. CBSE/RO/PTN/UFM/Main/10th/7-2025/7506 dated 31.05.2025, the petitioner was informed that her examination of SSCE-2025 in all the subjects was cancelled also debarring her from participating in the Board’s next year examination i.e., SSCE-2026.
6. It is also contended that the petitioner being a National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (UG)-2025 aspirant, appeared in the said test and successfully cleared it. Hence, if her result of SSCE-2025 is not declared, her career will be ruined.
7. It is argued that though the petitioner was in possession of the mobile phone in the examination hall, she had not used it and as such she was not liable to be punished for using unfair means in the examination.
8. It is further urged that ample opportunity was not provided to the petitioner to present her case. The show cause notice does not reflect the actual charge levelled against the petitioner and in absence of the same, the entire Unfair Means case initiated against her stands vitiated on ground of procedural impropriety and violation of the principles of natural justice.
9. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent-CBSE submits that the p
