The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to examination Bye-Laws and principles of natural justice for fair assessment in academic settings.

JUDGMENT :

DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J.

1. All these petitioners appeared in the Board of Secondary School Certificate Examination- 2025 (Class-X/Class-XII) conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), a registered Society, which regulates & supervises inter alia the conduct of such examinations periodically & on regular basis. Results of petitioners have not been announced on the ground that they had adopted “UNFAIR MEANS” (UFM), although results of other candidates have been webhosted on 26.05.2025. Aggrieved thereby, they are complaining before the Writ Court.

2. Submissions made on behalf of petitioners:

(i) The action of the Board in treating the case of petitioners as of UFM, being unilateral, is contrary to law, facts & evidence borne out by record. There is a gross violation of principles of natural justice to the prejudice of petitioners.

(ii) There is absolutely no reason or rhyme to attribute the stigma of UFM and thereby interdict the movement of petitioners to the next level, and that the action has caused a great loss of valuable academic period.

(iii) The CBSE has promulgated Examination Bye-Laws, 1995, as amended till January, 2013; Bye-Law 36 prescribes the procedure for treating the cases of malpractice & of unfair means, which has been breached to the core, sans justification.

(iv) Even if petitioners are failed in one of the six subjects, they are entitled to be promoted to the next higher level, the prescribed minimum passing of papers being five, and this aspect of the matter has not been considered in the impugned orders.

3. Submissions on behalf of CBSE:

(i) Regardless of the text of the impugned orders, the factual back-ground of all these cases is one of mass-copying/malpractice and the authorities, having looked into all aspects of the matter, have taken the impugned decisions, which cannot be faltered.

(ii) The Schools concerned having not preserved CC Camera footage fully, the authorities had a great disadvantage and that by employing their expertise in the matter, the impugned decisions have been taken and therefore, this Court should readily grant interference in a matter which is essentially academic.

(iii) The question of following principles of natural justice in matters like this is nearly impossible, regard being had to nature of the examination and numerical strength of the examinees. Since matter was very serious, Principals of two Schools have been suspended in contemplation of disciplinary inquiry.

(iv) The provisions of Bye-Law 36 are only in the nature of guidelines and case of the petitioners apparently falling in the exceptional circumstances, adherence to this Bye-Law has been dispensed with in the special & peculiar fact matrix.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers and also having adverted to rulings cited at the Bar, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:-

4.1. The CBSE Bye-Laws make abundant provision and prescribe a due procedure for treating cases of Unfair Means/Malpractice, is not disputed. When there is mass-copying or other malpractice, the provisions of Bye-Law 36 come into play. This Bye-Law prescribes the penalty also to the errant students. They employ mandatory terminology. Therefore, learned advocates appearing for the petitioners are right in telling that the breach of these Bye- Laws would render the impugned decisions vulnerable for challenge. The contention of CBSE panel counsel, that every rule has an exception, has not been demonstrated from the text or context of Bye-Laws. Unless law indicates the exception, it is ordinarily impermissible to contend that the case falls in the class of exception. After a