SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Ori) 412

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
S.C. Parija, J.
CHOUDHURY JIBITESH PRADHAN AND OTHERS - APPELLANT
Versus
COUNCIL OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION ORISSA AND ANOTHER - RESPONDENT
Writ Petition (C) No. 18042 of 2011
Decided On : 25-11-2011

Advocates Appeared:
Sameer Ku. Das and S.K. Mishra, for the Appellant; A.K. Bose and P.K. Das, for the Respondent

In cases of mass malpractice, the examination as a whole may be cancelled without giving individual candidates an opportunity to defend themselves, to maintain discipline and academic standards.

Headnote:

Mass Malpractice - Examination Cancellation - The Orissa Council of Higher Secondary Education - 171 candidates appeared in the examination, only four candidates found guilty of malpractice, yet the examination in the subject English was cancelled, and all candidates were awarded '0' marks. The court upheld the decision of the Council based on the report of the Flying Squad, which indicated widespread malpractice and chaos at the examination center.

Fact of the Case:

The students challenged the cancellation of the 1st sitting examination in English and the awarding of '0' marks due to mass malpractice at their College Centre. The petitioners argued that they were not involved in malpractice and should have been given an opportunity to explain before the cancellation of their results.

Finding of the Court:

The court upheld the decision of the Council to cancel the examination and award '0' marks based on the report of the Flying Squad, which indicated widespread malpractice and chaos at the examination center. The court emphasized the need to maintain discipline in academic institutions and refused to interfere with the Council's decision.

Issues: The main issue was whether the cancellation of the examination and awarding of '0' marks to all candidates due to mass malpractice was justified, especially when only four candidates were found guilty of malpractice.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in situations of mass malpractice, it is not necessary to give individual candidates an opportunity to defend themselves, and the examination as a whole may be cancelled. The decision of the Council, based on the report of the Flying Squad, was given due weight by the court, considering the need to maintain high standards of education and discipline in academic institutions.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the decision of the Council to cancel the examination and award '0' marks to all candidates was upheld.

JUDGMENT :

S.C. Parija, J. - The writ petition has been filed by the students of the Panchayat Samiti College, Saharapada, in the district of Keonjhar, challenging the Notification dated 18.5.2011 (Annexure-1), issued by the Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa, (the 'CHSE' for short) cancelling the 1st sitting examination in the subject English, held on 15.03.2011 at their College Centre of Annual Higher Secondary Examination, 2011, in Arts stream and awarding "0" mark. The case of the petitioners is that they had appeared in the subject English of Annual Higher Secondary Examination, 2011, from their College Centre as regular candidates on 15.03.2011. As they had prepared very well for the examination, they expected to get good marks in the said subject. The examination was conducted at their College Centre in a smooth manner and there was no untoward incident during the examination. The grievance of the petitioners is that when their result was published, they were shown to have failed in the subject English and they have all been awarded "0" mark. On enquiry from the Centre Superintendent it was ascertained that the examination in the subject English has been cancelled by the CHSE on the ground of mass malpractice and all students appearing from the College Centre have been awarded "0" mark in the said subject, though only four students were found to have resorted to unfair means and were booked under malpractice by the members of the Flying Squad, who had visited the College Centre on the date of the examination on 15.03.2011.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as 171 candidates appeared in the examination, which was conducted in five different halls/rooms in the College Centre and only in one hall four candidates have been booked under malpractice, as has been reported by the members of the Flying Squad, the present petitioners, who were not the candidates sitting in the particular hall/room cannot be made to suffer, for the fault of those four candidates. In this regard, it is submitted that as the cancellation of the examination in the subject English and awarding "0" mark to the petitioner adversely affects their educational career, they should have been given an opportunity to explain, especially when there was no allegation against any of them of having resorted to the malpractice, as per the report of the Flying Squad. It is further submitted that the Examination Committee of CHSE has accepted the report of the Flying Squad mechanically and passed the impugned Notification dated 18.5.2011, cancelling the examination in the subject English and awarding "0" mark to the petitioners, without verifying the veracity of the allegations made therein. In this regard, it is submitted that the report of the Flying Squad cannot be accepted as gospel truth and therefore, it was the duty of the CHSE to make further enquiry and ascertain the correctness of the allegations detailed in the said report, before taking such drastic action thereon, involving the academic career of the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decision of this Court in Governing Body, Jambeswar Mahavidyalaya Vs. Council of Higher Secondary Education and Another, in support of his contention that when there is no specific allegation of malpractice against any of the petitioners, the cancellation of their result on the ground of mass malpractice is not proper and justified. In this regard, learned counsel has also relied upon two other decisions of this Court in Principal, Ghanteswar Mahavidyalaya -Vrs- Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa Pragyapitha and seven others, 2008(II) OLR 302 and the case of M. Vinita and Others Vs. Council of Higher Secondary Education, .

4. The opposite parties have filed a counter affidavit stating therein that the petitioners who are students of Panchayat Samiti College, Saharapada, had appeared in the 1st sitting in the subject English on 15.3.2011 from their Coll


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top