A Board or its Chairman, while exercising the power to cancel an examination or refuse to declare a result, acts in a quasi-judicial capacity and is bound to follow the principles of natural justice, including providing the student with an opportunity to explain their situation.

( 1 ) THIS is a special appeal against a decision of Mr. Justice Mathur dated the 6th October 1961 dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellant. The appellant was formerly a student of class xii of the Vasant Girls intermediate College, Varanasi in the 1959-60 session. She appeared at the Intermediate Examination from that institution and failed in I960. She then joined the government Intermediate College for Girls at Jaunpur and was admitted to the Intermediate examination of 1961 from that institution in March/april 1961. Her result for that examination was, however, not declared and by a letter dated the 6th July 1961 her guardian was informed that her examination had been cancelled by the respondent Board. The reason given for the cancellation was that the appellant was not eligible to appear at the examination because she was short of attendance by seven lectures in the subject of Griha Vigyan. It was held that the principal of the institution could in the case of the appellant condone the absence of five lectures only but had wrongly purported to condone all the seven lectures which she had no jurisdiction to do. By the writ petition which has given rise to this appeal the appellant challenged the validity of the cancellation of her examination and prayed that the order of cancellation be quashed by writ cf certiorari. She also claimed a suitable writ, direction or order, including a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent Board to withdraw its order of cancellation and to declare her result according to law. The grounds urged in support of the petition were that the cancellation was ultra vires the powers of the Board, that the order had been passed in contravention of the principles of natural justice, that the alleged shortage of lectures was not due to any fault of the appellant, that, in fact, there was no shortage and the relevant rules had been misinterpreted and that the appellant could not be penalised for any act or omission of the Principal of the institution.

( 2 ) THE petition was dismissed in limine on the ground that the appellants attendance was really short by seven lectures and though five of those lectures could be condoned by the Principal the remaining two could not have been so condoned, the appellant had, therefore, no right to appear in the examination and the Board could refuse to declare her result. The learned Judge took the view that the case was strictly speaking not one of cancellation of the result But was really one of refusal to declare the result of a person not entitled to appear at the examination, and it was not necessary to call for her explanation or to give her an opportunity of being heard before passing an order. It was also held that the regulation under which the Board had taken action was not unreasonable or contrary to the principles of natural justice as the appellant having applied under the Regulations to be admitted to the examination could not avoid being bound by them.

( 3 ) BY the present appeal the appellant challenges the correctness of the order dismissing her petition.

( 4 ) SO far as the facts are concerned they are almost admitted. The appellant being a failed candidate her attendance during only one academic year was to be taken into consideration in each subject and out of the lectures given she was expected to be present in 75 per cent. of the lectures. In the subject of Griha Vigyan there were altogether 113 lectures. The appellant was present in 77 of those lectures only though she ought to have been present in 84. There was thus a shortage to the extent of seven lectures. In the case of the appellant, however, the Principal of the institution had condoned all the seven lectures. There is however nothing to indicate any mala fide motive on the part of the Principal, respondent No. 3, in condoning the appellants aforesaid shortage.

( 5 ) ON the 6th July 1961 the Secretary of the respondent Board wrote a letter to the Principal informing her