Back
1996 Supreme(Ori) 223
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
S.C. Datta, A. Pasayat, JJ.
BALIA WOMEN`S COLLEGE - APPELLANT
Versus
COUNCIL OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
O.J.C.N. 8779 of 1996
Decided On : 17-12-1996
C. Mohanty, B.K. Biswal and K. Lenka, for the Appellant; S.D. Das, R. Mohanty, L. Samantray, H.S. Satpathy, B. Pattanaik, B.K. Sinha and D. Dhar for opp. parties 1 and 2, for the Respondent
The Examination Committee has the power to cancel examinations in cases of mass malpractice, and it is not required to grant an opportunity to all the candidates to present their case before doing so.
Headnote:
MASS COPYING - INTERPRETATION - SECTION 21, 30, 77 OF ORISSA HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT, 1982 AND REGULATION 77 OF ORISSA HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION REGULATIONS, 1982 - INTERPRETED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner-institution challenged the cancellation of results of its students who appeared for the Annual Higher Secondary Education Examination, 1996, due to alleged mass copying.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Council was justified in canceling the results as there was sufficient evidence of mass copying and that the Examination Committee had the power to do so under Section 21, 30, and 77 of the Orissa Higher Secondary Education Act, 1982 and Regulation 77 of the Orissa Higher Secondary Education Regulations, 1982.
Issues: Whether the Council was justified in canceling the results of the petitioner-institution's students due to alleged mass copying.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that mass copying is not defined in the Act or the Regulations and has to be understood in its common parlance. It further held that the Examination Committee is responsible for the fair conduct of examinations and has the power to cancel examinations in cases of mass malpractice. The court also held that the Council was not required to grant an opportunity to all the candidates to present their case before canceling the results.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner-institution.
JUDGMENT :
A. Pasayat, J. - Balia Women's College (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioner'), has prayed . for a direction to the Controller of Examinations Council of Higher SecondaryEducation! Orissa, Bhubaneswar (-in short, 'Council') to publish results of its students who had appeared at the Annual Higher Secondary Education, 1996 and to, further ., declare the. . candidates to have passed in the said examination.
2. Grievance of petitioner in a nutshell is as follows :
Petitioner institution was established during the year, 1991-92. Initially its students were appearing, at another centre as candidates Since 1994, its students were appearing as candidates at the College which was fixed as a centre. For the examination in question, one hundred seventy one candidates appeared as candidates of petitioner-institution. The flying squad appointed by the Council made a surprise visit on 4-3-1996 while second sitting of M. I. L. paper in respect of +2 (Articles) Examination was going on. The members of the flying squad arrived at the College at 3-50 p. m. and remained at the centre till 4-20 p. m. Chough examination, was being conducted in a peaceful manner, and only four cases relating to adoption of malpractice were detected, strangely though the flying squad recommended cancellation of results of all the candidates, and also suggested that no further examination should be held by the Council by having its. examination centre at the College. Only a few individual cases were detected and in the absence of any material to substantiate allegation of mass-mafpractice, cancellation as directed is uncalled for. Before cancellation no opportunity was granted to the candidates to present their case impugned notification of the Council is dated 9th July, July 1996 and is annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ application, by which it was notified that results in respect of examination held on different dates on various subjects in 'respect of one hundred forty eight Institutions were to be cancelled by taking into account resolution No. 1665 dated 5-7-1996 and 8-7-1996 of the Examination Committed It was notified that benefit of hard case rule was not to be extended to those students whose results were cancelled and re-examination of those papers were not to be held. Action of the Council in making impugned notification is under challenge so far as petitioner-institution is concerned.
3. Mr. S.C. Das, learned counsel for the Council submitted that general condition in the centre was disturbing and examination was not being conducted as per rules of the Council, and there was disturbance inside the hall. Malpractice was adopted inside the hall. Though four cases of malpractice were detected and reported by the flying squad, it was noticed that majority of students were involved in malpractice, invigilators were abettors to the malpractice and the Centre Superintendent could not prevent the same. The deficiencies noted by the flying squad are as follows :
(i) General condition around ' the examination centre was disturbing and general condition inside the examination hall was also disturbing.
(ii) Examination was not conducted as per C. H. S. E. Rules and there was disturbance inside the hall.
(iii) Malpractice was adopted inside the hall and four cases of malpractice were detected and reported by the flying squad.
(iv) Majority of students were involved in malpractice, invigilators were abettors to the malpractice and the Centre Superintendent could not prevent the same.
Further the flying squad recommended that as the students were involved in the malpractice, rooms are very small and the employees give information regarding arrival of the flying squad and favour malpractice there should not be a centre in addition to cancellation of the sitting. Considering the report of the flying squad and materials brought on record, direction was given by the impugned notification so far as petitioner institution is concerned, which is in order. 4. According to S
