Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Agarwala, Raghubar Dayal and Brij Mohan Lall, JJ.
GHANSHYAM DAS GUPTA - Appellant
Versus
BOARD OF HIGH SCHOOL AND INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION U.P., ALLAHABAD - Respondents
Special Appeal 291 Of 1955
Decided On : 03/23/1956
The Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. (the Board) conducted an Intermediate Examination in 1954. The appellants were students who appeared in the examination and were declared successful. However, their results were later cancelled and they were debarred from appearing in the Board's examination of 1955 due to allegations of unfair means. The appellants filed a writ petition challenging the Board's decision, arguing that they were not given an opportunity to be heard before the penalty was imposed. The High Court held that the Board's proceedings were neither judicial nor quasi-judicial, and that there was no obligation on the Board to hear the appellants. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were students who appeared in the Intermediate Examination conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. (the Board) in 1954 and were declared successful. However, their results were later cancelled and they were debarred from appearing in the Board's examination of 1955 due to allegations of unfair means. The appellants filed a writ petition challenging the Board's decision, arguing that they were not given an opportunity to be heard before the penalty was imposed. The High Court held that the Board's proceedings were neither judicial nor quasi-judicial, and that there was no obligation on the Board to hear the appellants. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the Board's proceedings were quasi-judicial in nature and that the appellants were entitled to an opportunity to be heard before the penalty was imposed. The Court held that the Board's failure to provide such an opportunity vitiated its order.
Issues: 1. Whether the Board's proceedings were judicial or quasi-judicial in nature. 2. Whether the appellants were entitled to an opportunity to be heard before the penalty was imposed.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Board's proceedings were quasi-judicial in nature because they involved the determination of a dispute between the Board and the appellants, and the imposition of a penalty upon the appellants. 2. The Court held that the appellants were entitled to an opportunity to be heard before the penalty was imposed because the Board's decision had serious consequences for the appellants, including the loss of two years of their education and the stigma of being labeled as cheaters.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the High Court, and issued a writ of mandamus directing the Board to forbear from enforcing the resolution cancelling the appellants' results and debarring them from appearing in the 1955 examination.
( 1 ) THIS is a special appeal against the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court. The ap-pellants are three examinees, being the students of G. S. Hindu Inter College, Sikandra Rao, dis-trict Aligarh, who appeared in the intermediate examination of 1954 conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, UP. , in March and April of that year. Their college itself was a centre for the purposes of the examination. Some of the examinees were found using unfair means and were expelled from the examination hall. The appellants were not among them. They completed their examination. The results were declared by the aforesaid Board in the Leader of 12-6-1954, and were again published in the U. P. Gazette dated 16-10-1954. In both these notifications the appellants were de-clared as successful candidates. The mark sheets were also sent to all colleges and therein also the appellants were shown as having passed the exa-mination. They joined B. A. Classes in different colleges. In December 1954, i. e. eight or nine months after the examination, their parents received from the Principal of G. S. Hindu Inter College copies of a resolution No. 83, dated 5-9-1954, of the exa-minations Committee of the Board wherein it was stated that the appellants results had been cancelled and that they had been debarred from appearing in the Boards examination of 1955.
( 2 ) IT is common ground between the parties that before the receipt of the copies of the resolu-tion by their parents the appellants had not been apprised of the charges against them. Nor were they told what evidence the Examinations Committee had before it before recording the above re-solution. The appellants were denied the oppor-tunity of cross-examining the witnesses who might have deposed against them. Nor were they per-mitted to explain or scrutinise the other oral or documentary evidence that might have been available to the Committee.
( 3 ) THE appellants filed a writ petition pray-ing that a writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ, direction or order be issued quashing the re-solution of the Examinations Committee and that a writ of mandamus be also issued commanding the Board not to give effect to the aforesaid re-solution.
( 4 ) FROM the affidavits filed before the learned single Judge it appeared that the Examinations committee received reports that the appellants answers to question No. 1 in Book-Keeping and accountancy Paper agreed with each other word for word and also agreed with a typed copy that v/as distributed among the examinees. The Exa-minations Committee appointed a sub-committee to enquire into this matter. The sub-committee did not give any notice to the appellants, conducted ex parte proceedings, and submitted a report to the Examinations Com-mittee. This report also was not disclosed to the appellants. Even we have been denied the privi-lege of seeing this report. This report was accept-ed on 5-9-1954 by the Examinations Committee and it passed the resolution aforesaid.
( 5 ) THE learned single Judge held that the proceedings conducted by the sub-committee were not judicial proceedings and that there was so sta-tutory obligation on the part of the sub-committee to hear the appellants. He relied on an earlier decision of his own in the case of Pateh mohammad Khan v. U. P. Board of High School and Inter-mediate Education, Civil Misc. Writ no. 620 of 1954, D/- 11-8-1954 (All) (A ). In that case also the learned Judge had taken the same view, but in that case action was taken by the Examinations Committee before the examination result was de-clared out.
( 6 ) THE Board of High School and Interme-diate Education has been constituted under Section 3 of the Intermediate Education Act (2 of 1921 ). Sec-tion 7 of the Act defines the powers of the board and empowers it, inter alia, to do all such other acts and things as may be requisite in order to further the objects of the Board as a body constituted for regulating a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
