Back
1981 Supreme(Ori) 12
Orissa High Court
R. N. MISRA, C.J. AND DR. B. N. MISRA, J.
Krupasindhu Mallik - Appellant
Versus
Orissa Board of Secondary Education - Respondents
Original Jurn. Case No.573 of 1980
Decided On : 13 February 1981
Dr. S.C. Dash, S.K. Acharya and B.K. Patnaik, for Petitioner; G. Rath, R.K. Rath, N.C. Panigrahi, A.B. Misra, P.K. Patnaik and Addl. Govt. Advocate, for Opposite Parties.
Fraud vitiates all actions, and no court can uphold a right based on fraud.
Headnote:
EDUCATION - BOARD EXAMINATION - FRAUDULENT MARK-SHEET - ESTOPPEL - NO RIGHT BASED ON FRAUD - BOARD NOT ESTOPPED FROM CORRECTING MISTAKE - WRIT APPLICATION DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner appeared in the Annual High School Certificate Examination of 1979 conducted by the Orissa Board of Secondary Education (Board) and obtained a certificate of transfer and a mark-sheet indicating that he had passed the examination. Based on these documents, he got admitted into the first year class of a college. Later, he received a letter from the Headmaster enclosing a corrected mark-sheet showing that he had failed. Petitioner challenged the letter and the corrected mark-sheet, claiming that he had passed the examination as evidenced by the earlier documents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the mark-sheet produced by the petitioner was not genuine and that the particulars therein differed from the actual marks obtained by him as per the Board's Marks Register. The court also found that the Board had never declared the petitioner to have passed the examination and that the Headmaster had acted on the basis of fraudulent communications.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had passed the Board examination as claimed by him. 2. Whether the Board was estopped from correcting the mistake in the mark-sheet due to the petitioner's reliance on the fraudulent documents.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner had not passed the Board examination as evidenced by the Marks Register, which was a statutory document and had a presumption of correctness. 2. The court held that the Board was not estopped from correcting the mistake in the mark-sheet as the petitioner's claim was based on fraud. The court noted that fraud vitiates all actions and that no court can uphold a right based on fraud.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's writ application, holding that he had not passed the Board examination and that the Board was not estopped from correcting the mistake in the mark-sheet.
Judgement
R. N. MISRA, C.J.:- Petitioner appeared at the Annual High School Certificate Examination of 1979 conducted by the Orissa Board of Secondary Education (hereafter referred to as the Board ) with Roll No. 29 S 143 as a regular candidate from the M.S. High School, Baramba. He obtained a certificate of transfer from the opposite party No. 2 Headmaster as per Annexure-1 which indicated that petitioner had passed the examination and a mark-sheet (Annexure-2) which showed that he had secured 362 marks in the different subjects as against the minimum requirement of 264 marks. The petitioner alleges that on the basis of the transfer certificate and the mark-sheet, he got himself admitted into the first year class of the College whose Principal is opposite party No. 3. While he was continuing his study in the college, he received a letter from the Headmaster dated 14-3-1980 (Annexure-4) enclosing a corrected mark-sheet (Annexure-5). The letter informed him that the petitioner had failed and the mark-sheet showed that petitioner had obtained total marks of 272 but in view of grossly low marks obtained in different subjects, he had failed. Petitioner in this application seeks to challenge the letter of the Headmaster and the corrected mark-sheet and maintains that he has passed the Board examination as evidenced by Annexures 1 and 2 and his career should not be affected by the subsequent action of the Headmaster.
2. Opposite parties Headmaster and Principal have appeared but they have not filed any counter-affidavits. The Board in its return has contended that the petitioner had not passed in the examination and he was never declared as a successful candidate. It has been asserted that the Board never sent a mark-sheet corresponding to Annexure-2 and the genuineness of the mark-sheet issued by the Headmaster has been challenged. Shortly stated, it is said that Annexures-1 and 2 are based upon fraudulent documents and details given therein differ from the actual marks obtained by the petitioner.
3. At the hearing of the matter, counsel for the Board has produced the Marks Register maintained in the statutory form B.S.E.-42, from where it is clear that the mark-sheet (Annexure-2) produced by the petitioner is not a genuine one. The particulars in Annexure-2 and in the Register so far as petitioner is concerned are shown in a tabular form below:-
Subject Full Marks Pass Marks Marks Obtained As shown in Annexure-2
Excess
English Paper-I 100 30 35 25 10
English Paper-II 100 30 41 21 20
M. I. L. (O) 100 30 34 24 10
As shown in the register
Sanskrit 100 30 41 41 -
Mathematics 100 30 53 53 -
History Civ. 60 30 22 22 -
Geography 40 30 18 08 10
G. Science 100 30 47 47 -
Optional E. P. H. 100 30 71 31 40
Total - 800 264 362 272 90
Thus it appears that marks in Annexure-2 have been inflated by 90 over and above what petitioner as a fact had secured at the examination. In the register maintained by the Board, petitioner has been shown to have failed. The original answer books have been destroyed after the results were finally published and, therefore, no reference to the primary material is possible at this point of time. According to the Board, what is alleged to have been communicated to the Headmaster on the basis of which Annexures-1 and 2 are said to have been drawn up is not in accordance with the Board s practice as current at the relevant time, as the form that was being sent was of a different colour. It is stated that there is a fraudulent racket in operation which has made the present situation possible.
4. Admittedly on the basis of the certificates in Annexures-1 and 2, petitioner has changed his position and if he is now treated to have failed he would be prejudiced. In the present case, there is no allegation that the Board had directly made any representation to the petitioner, nor is it the allegation of the petitioner that he would be prejudiced on account of any revised situation brought about by the Board. The Board has taken the stand t
