Back
Allahbad High Court
K.N.SINGH,K.N.SETH,K.C.AGRAWAL
Ghazanfar Rashid - Appellant
Versus
Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. Allahabad - Respondent
Decided On : 05/01/1979
INTERMEDIATE EXAMINATION - USE OF UNFAIR MEANS - INFERENCE FROM CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a student, appeared for the Intermediate Examination conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education (Board). A complaint was received by the Board that unfair means were used by the examinees at large scales at the said centre in answering the question papers of Intermediate Examination of 1973. The Board appointed a Screening Committee of experts in various subjects to ascertain the correctness of the allegations. The Screening Committee on scrutiny of the answer books found that examinees who appeared from that centre, including the petitioner, had used unfair means. The Examinations Committee appointed a spot enquiry committee to enquire into the matter in detail and it approved a charge sheet in the form of a questionnaire for service of the same on the erring examinees. The spot enquiry committee served the charge sheet on the petitioner and obtained his explanation. The charge sheet alleged that in answering question No. 1 of Chemistry Second paper, the petitioner had used unfair means and in support of the charge it was alleged that the petitioner had arrived at the correct answer without going through the requisite working either in rough or in the answer itself which could not be possible, therefore the petitioner had answered the question with the aid of some outside agency. The petitioner denied the charge and asserted that arithmetical steps involved in the question were so simple that he solved the same orally and there was no necessity of doing any rough work. He further denied to have obtained any extraneous help directly or indirectly through any source. The Examination Committee did not find the petitioners explanation satisfactory, it held the petitioner guilty of having used unfair means and it thereupon cancelled the petitioners Intermediate Examination of 1973. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the aforesaid order of the Board.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Examinations Committee was justified in drawing inference from the circumstances available on record and the rule of circumstantial evidence as applicable to criminal trials is not applicable to proceedings before it. The Court further held that while considering the validity of the decision of the Examinations Committee the High Court should not interfere with its order merely because a different view is possible on the material on record.
Issues: 1. Whether the Examinations Committee was justified in drawing inference from the circumstances available on record? 2. Whether the High Court should interfere with the order of the Examinations Committee merely because a different view is possible on the material on record?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Examinations Committee is a quasi-judicial authority while exercising its powers and functions under Regulation I (1) of Chapter VI of the Regulations framed under Chapter XV of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. 2. The principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases noted earlier would apply with Ores for decision of the Examinations Committee also. 3. The Examinations Committee is entitled to base its evidence (conclusion) on intrinsic evidence provided by the petitioners own answer book. 4. If the Examinations Committee relying on the probabilities and circumstantial evidence and the intrinsic evidence available in the answer book of the examinee comes to the conclusion that unfair means was used it is outside the jurisdiction of the High Court to reappraise and re-assess the evidentiary value of those circumstances to take a different view. 5. The High Court can interfere if the order is wholly arbitrary and so capricious that no reasonable person could come to the conclusion on the material on record, but if a person can reasonably come to that, conclusion, the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the order.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
K. N. SINGH, J. :- A Division Bench of this Court, expressing doubt about the correctness of the principles laid down by another Bench of this Court in Prabhat Kumar v. Board of High School and Intermediate Education (1971 All LJ 1391) referred the writ petition for decision to a larger Bench. Since the entire case has been referred to this Bench, it is essential to state necessary facts giving rise to this petition.
2. The petitioner appeared at the Intermediate Examination of 1973 held by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education (hereinafter referred to as the Board) from the Government Inter College, Banda. A complaint was received by the Board that unfair means was used by the examinees at large scales at the said centre in answering the question papers of Intermediate Examination of 1973. The Board appointed a Screening Committee of experts in various subjects to ascertain the correctness of the allegations. The Screening Committee on scrutiny of the answer books found that examinees who appeared from that centre, including the petitioner, had used unfair means. The Examinations Committee appointed a spot enquiry committee to enquire into the matter in detail and it approved a charge sheet in the form of a questionnaire for service of the same on the erring examinees. The spot enquiry committee served the charge sheet on the petitioner and obtained his explanation. The charge sheet alleged that in answering question No. 1 of Chemistry Second paper, the petitioner had used unfair means and in support of the charge it was alleged that the petitioner had arrived at the correct answer without going through the requisite working either in rough or in the answer itself which could not be possible, therefore the petitioner had answered the question with the aid of some outside agency. The petitioner denied the charge and asserted that arithmetical steps involved in the question were so simple that he solved the same orally and there was no necessity of doing any rough work. He further denied to have obtained any extraneous help directly or indirectly through any source. The Examination Committee did not find the petitioners explanation satisfactory, it held the petitioner guilty of having used unfair means and it thereupon cancelled the petitioners Intermediate Examination of 1973. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the aforesaid order of the Board.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that there was no evidence to sustain the decision of the Examinations Committee that the petitioner had used unfair means. Absence of rough works or requisite working did not conclusively prove that the petitioner had used unfair means. The Examinations Committee could not draw inference of use of unfair means on account of the absence of rough work and requisite working. The principle of circumstantial evidence contemplates that the circumstances must conclusively point out the petitioners guilt and if there is any possibility of petitioners innocence the petitioner could not be held guilty. In this context learned counsel further urged that the decision of the Examinations Committee is arbitrary which no reasonable person could arrive at. Sri S.C. Verma, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Board, urged that there was intrinsic evidence in the petitioners answer book which was sufficient to sustain the decision of the examinations committee. The Examinations Committee was justified in drawing inference from the circumstances available on record and the rule of circumstantial evidence as applicable to criminal trials is not applicable to proceedings before it.
4. Learned counsel further urged that while considering the validity of the decision of the Examinations Committee the High Court should not interfere with its order merely because a different view is possible on the material on record.
5. Question No. 1 of Chemistry, II paper, was as
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
