Back
1996 Supreme(Ori) 211
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
S. Chatterji, Dipak Misra, JJ.
SAROJ KUMAR DAS AND OTHERS - APPELLANT
Versus
UTKAL UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
Original Jurisdiction Case No. 8695 of 1996
Decided On : 04-12-1996
B.K. Patnaik and B. Satpathy, for the Appellant; S. Sikdar, S. Ghose and A. Sikdar, for the Respondent
The University has the authority to cancel an examination if there is evidence of mass malpractice.
Headnote:
B. ED. EXAMINATION - CANCELLATION - MASS MALPRACTICE - REPORTS OF SUPERVISORS - CONSIDERATION BY BOARD OF CONDUCTING EXAMINERS AND SYNDICATE - DECISION TO CANCEL EXAMINATION - WRIT PETITION CHALLENGING CANCELLATION - DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
41 students who appeared as private B. Ed. Examinees at U. N. College, Nalagaja Centre in the district of Mayurbhanj challenged the cancellation of their examination results due to alleged mass malpractice. The petitioners argued that the reports of the supervisors were contradictory and subjective, and that the University authorities did not conduct a proper inquiry before canceling the examination.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the reports of the supervisors were clear and unequivocal, and that the Board of Conducting Examiners and the Syndicate had considered the reports and made a decision to cancel the examination after due deliberation. The Court also noted that the University had given the students a fresh opportunity to appear in the examination in 1996.
Issues: 1. Whether the reports of the supervisors were sufficient to establish mass malpractice. 2. Whether the University authorities conducted a proper inquiry before canceling the examination. 3. Whether the cancellation of the examination was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the reports of the supervisors were sufficient to establish mass malpractice. The reports were clear and unequivocal, and they indicated that the examinees were using unauthorized materials and engaging in malpractice during the examination. 2. The Court held that the University authorities conducted a proper inquiry before canceling the examination. The reports of the supervisors were considered by the Board of Conducting Examiners and the Syndicate, and the decision to cancel the examination was made after due deliberation. 3. The Court held that the cancellation of the examination was justified. The University had a duty to maintain the integrity of its examinations, and the mass malpractice that occurred during the examination warranted the cancellation.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the cancellation of the examination.
JUDGMENT :
S. Chatterji, J.
1.The present writ petition is at the instance of 41 students who appeared as private B. Ed. Examinees at U. N. College, Nalagaja Centre in the district of Mayurbhanj seeking reliefs as follows :
"......issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to have a thorough probe into the system, method and actual conduct of B. Ed. Examination, 1995 to determine the petitioners in any way guilty of any misconduct either in process or in respect of answers written in the examination papers and find out if the petitioners deserve the punishment meted out to them by the University by the order in Annexure-1 and if necessary command the 0. P. N. 1 to restore the marks in all papers hereby cancelling illegal notification in Annexure-1 or in the alternative command the opposite parties to hold a fresh examination, if the Hon'ble Court feels as a part of the Annual Examination, 1995 without fees and issue other order/direction as will do complete justice to the petitioners."
2. It is stated in details that U. N. College at Nalagaja in the district of Mayurbhanj is a reputed College. Utkal University had chosen the same as a Centre for B. Ed. Examination and the Controller of Examinations, Utkal University by its letter dated 19-9-1995 published the programme for B. Ed. Examination of private candidates indicating that the said examination for the year 1995 would start from 20-11-1995.
3. It is contended that the result of the B. Ed. Examination was declared by the University Notification dated 20-3-1996 in which it was mentioned all the results of the U. N. College, Nalagaja Centre relating to B. Ed. Examination. 1995 (private) were withheld for the other reasons. Immediately after the publication of the results, the Principal by his letter dated 2-4-1996 wrote to the Controller of Examinations, Utkal University, explaining therein in regard to the acute adverse circumstances under which he joined and the risk and difficulty which he had undertaken to conduct the Examination. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they had not indulged in any unfair means nor they resorted to mass-malpractice in the examination. In fact, the petitioners have challenged the notification dated 26-4-1996 vide Annexure-1 which indicates, inte alia, that in pursuance of the decision of the Syndicate at Us meeting held on 20-4-1996 the result of. B. Ed. (Private) Examination, 1992 in respect of the candidates appeared at the U. N. College, Nalagaja in the district of Mayurbhanj has been cancelled for being reported to have been involved in mass malpractice. The main grievance of the petitioners is as to the cancellation of the examination and the consequential sufferings. Stating all these facts in details the petitioners have sought for the reliefs as indicated above.
4. The writ petition is contested by the University authorities, opposite parties 1 and 2, by filling a comprehensive affidavit sworn to by the Administrative Officer (General). It is disclosed, inter alia, in the said affidavit that the petitioners had appeared In the B. EH. (Private) Examination, 1995 conducted at U. N. College, Nalagaja, which commenced on 20-11-1995. As per the procedure, two members of Supervisors named Sri Prafulla Kumar Mohanty. Lecturer, P. G. Department of Zoology and Dr. Bina Dasr Reader, P. G. Department of Political Science, Utkal University were deputed to U. N. College, Nalagaja to supervise the Examination on 28-11-1995 when Examination for Paper-Ill was conducted. The supervisors supervised the Centre on that day and submitted their reports. It appears from the report of Sri P.K. Mohanty that "all the Examinees were using papers and engaged in malpractice in all halls. Each candidate was using chits, papers openly". The report of Dr. Bina Das is doubt that few examinees might be possessing incriminating materials but could not be detected due to highly defective sitting arrangement". Copies of the reports are
