1987 Supreme(Ori) 160

High Court Of Orissa
G. B. PATTANAIK, L. R. RATH
RAJA MOHAPATRA - Appellant
Versus
BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION - Respondent
ORIGINAL JURDN. CASE 1996  Of  1987
Decided On : 09/25/1987

Headnote:

L. RATH, J. ( 1 ) THESE two petitions seek the identical relief of quashing of the notification by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa cancelling the whole of the Annual High School Certificate Examination, 1987 held at the centre of Hadibandhu Ucha Vidyapitha, Cuttack as not having been conducted as per the rules of the Board and for other reliefs differently. Since both the cases are for the identical relief mainly, they are disposed of by this common judgement.

Fact of the Case:

The Annual High School Certificate Examination of 1987 was held from 3-4-87 to 13-4-87. The Flying Squad appointed for the purpose of checking the examinations submitted one report on 3-4-87 and another on 10-4-87 in respect of the centre and a report from the observer of the centre was received on 16-4- 87. The Observer had reported that the answer papers at the centre were being handed over by candidates to nearby candidates, additional answer papers were handed over to nearby students, outsiders climbed over the walls and handed over papers, outsiders also climbed the top of the building and dropped written copy papers, the employees of the school brought copy papers from outside and supplied the same to the candidates and test papers were brought from outside into the hall, and had concluded that the examination was conducted without sanctity and suggested that the answer papers be examined by experts.

Finding of the Court:

The Examination Committee in its meeting held on 26-4-87 considered the various reports received from the Centre Superintendents, Deputy Centre Superintendents, Inspectors of Schools, Flying Squads and Observers regarding the conduct of examination in various centres and resolved to open separate files centre-wise in respect of those centres against which there were adverse reports. In all, the Examination Committee considered 105 case records and decided on 9-5-87 to complete all the case records in all the cases for further consideration. It was felt by the Examination Committee that many of the centres deserved severe penalties, but decided that before imposition of penalty against any centre, further examination of records was necessary. Pursuant to the suggestions by the Observers and direction of the Examination Committee, the examination papers were examined by the Expert Committees which committees submitted their reports on 15-5-87 with regard to specific allegations relating to the examination papers. The matter was examined by the Examination Committee on 17-5-87 and 18-5-87 along with the reports and the matter was taken up for further consideration on 31-5-87 on which date after due consideration it was resolved to cancel the examination of 61 centres wholly and partially in respect of 2 centres, to review the examination of 23 centres and to exempt 20 centres. In pursuance of such decision of the Examination Committee, the impugned notification of 23-6-87 (for convenience referred to as 'annexure-3') was published.

Issues: None

Ratio Decidendi: The decision to cancel the examination as a whole or in part is taken on the basis of a satisfaction arrived upon the report of the Superintendent, Deputy Superintendent and/or Supervisors, Inspectors and Observers that the examination has not been conducted as per rules. Thus the pre-conditions for the Examination Committee to reach the satisfaction are the reports of the specified persons stated in the regulation. The use of the words and/or in Regn. 41 (b) precedes the word 'supervisor' which would mean an option to have been given to the committee to examine the report of the Deputy Superintendent and the reports of the Supervisors or to examine either of them. But however, the examination of the reports of the Superintendent, Inspectors and Observers is not alternative to each other and have to be examined to enable the committee to take the action desired.

Final Decision: The decision of the Examination Committee and the Board as contained in Annexures 3 and 8 is quashed. The Board is directed to reconsider the matter afresh by taking into consideration the report of the Centre Superintendent, the other reports available with it, and the reports of the Expert Committee or examiner on the scrutiny of the answer papers of the candidates on all subjects at least to the extent of 60%. The consideration should be made and the results of the examination be published within a period of three months from the date of issue of the writ.