Back
Allahbad High Court
OMPRAKASHTRIVEDI
Satwant Singh Grewal - Appellant
Versus
The Board of High Schooland Intermediate Education, Allahabad - Respondent
Decided On : 05/15/1973
HIGH SCHOOL EXAMINATION - WITHHOLDING OF RESULT - CANCELLATION OF RESULT - ENQUIRY SUB-COMMITTEE - EXAMINATION COMMITTEE - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - VIOLATION - EVIDENCE - SUFFICIENCY - JUDICIAL REVIEW - SCOPE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner appeared in the High School Examination conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Allahabad in 1971 as a regular candidate. The result was declared in July 1971 but the petitioner's result was withheld. The result of one Syed Istifa Ali, who had also appeared in this examination from the same centre with roll No. 228934 was similarly withheld. In October, 1971 the petitioner received a communication from the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, requiring him to be present at the College on a fixed date and time to face an enquiry in connection with the withholding of his result. He went to the College on the appointed date and time. There a questionnaire was handed over to the petitioner by the officials of opposite party No. 1 containing several questions. One of the questions in the questionnaire suggested that the answer book of the petitioner relating to English IInd paper in question No. I contained three spelling mistakes. The question related to translation of a piece from Hindi to English. The wrong spellings of three English words in the answers tallied with the wrong spellings of the same three words in answer to the same question in the copy book of Syed Istifa Ali. The petitioner answered the questionnaire denying the various allegations and imputations made against him. The petitioner maintains that no unfair means could be practised in answering the said paper by the petitioner and Syed Istifa Ali as their seats in the same room were placed at considerable distance which made it impossible. In February, 1972 the petitioner received a communication from opposite party No. 1 by which he was informed that the result of the examination taken by the petitioner in 1971 was cancelled and the petitioner was debarred from appearing in the examination for High School for the year 1972.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was informed of the substance of the charges levelled against him and given an opportunity to meet them. The court further held that the decision of the Enquiry Committee was based on evidence as the circumstance that three spelling mistakes of an identical nature were committed by the petitioner and another candidate may not in a criminal trial be considered as sufficient evidence to support a criminal charge, but it cannot be said that the decision arrived at by the Enquiry Committee could not justifiably be reached on this circumstance.
Issues: 1. Whether there was a breach of the principles of natural justice in the proceedings of the Enquiry Sub-Committee and the Examinations Committee? 2. Whether the finding of the Enquiry Sub-Committee was based on any evidence?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The principles of natural justice do not require furnishing of a copy of the report to the candidate or a show cause notice after the finding of the Enquiry Sub-Committee. The requirement of natural justice was satisfied as the petitioner was informed of the substance of the charges levelled against him and given an opportunity to meet them. 2. The decision of the Enquiry Committee was based on evidence as the circumstance that three spelling mistakes of an identical nature were committed by the petitioner and another candidate may not in a criminal trial be considered as sufficient evidence to support a criminal charge, but it cannot be said that the decision arrived at by the Enquiry Committee could not justifiably be reached on this circumstance.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as the court found no ground for interference in the present petition.
ORDER :- This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Satwant Singh Grewal. The petitioner's case is that he appeared in the High School Examination conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Allahabad in 1971 as a regular candidate, his roll number being 228928. The result was declared in July 1971 but the petitioner's result was withheld. The result of one Syed Istifa Ali, who had also appeared in this examination from the same centre with roll No. 228934 was similarly withheld. In October, 1971 the petitioner received a communication from the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, opposite party No. 1, requiring him to be present at the College on a fixed date and time to face an enquiry in connection with the withholding of his result. He went to the College on the appointed date and time. There a questionnaire was handed over to the petitioner by the officials of opposite party No. 1 containing several questions. One of the questions in the questionnaire suggested that the answer book of the petitioner relating to English IInd paper in question No. I contained three spelling mistakes. The question related to translation of a piece from Hindi to English. The wrong spellings of three English words in the answers tallied with the wrong spellings of the same three words in answer to the same question in the copy book of Syed Istifa Ali. The petitioner answered the questionnaire denying the various allegations and imputations made against him. The petitioner maintains that no unfair means could be practised in answering the said paper by the petitioner and Syed Istifa Ali as their seats in the same room were placed at considerable distance which made it impossible. In February, 1972 the petitioner received a communication from opposite party No. 1 by which he was informed that the result of the examination taken by the petitioner in 1971 was cancelled and the petitioner was debarred from appearing in the examination for High School for the year 1972 (vide Annexure 2 of the writ petition). The petitioner prays for quashing the proceedings of the Enquiry Sub-Committee by a writ of certionari and also for mandamus commanding opposite parties 1 and 2 to declare the result of the petitioner for the year 1971. The validity of the decision of the Enquiry Sub-Committee and the Examinations Committee withholding the petitioner's result and its subsequent cancellation is challenged on the ground that the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity to defend himself and there was non-observance of the principles of natural justice and secondly that the decision was based on no evidence.
2. The opposite parties in their counter-affidavit deny that there was any violation of the principles of natural justice and averred that the petitioner had committed spelling mistakes in respect of labour' which was written as labour, 'throughout' which was written as 'through out', he had written 'ridding' for 'riding' and 'growed' for 'grown.' Identical mistakes were noticed in answer to question No. 1 of the aforesaid paper in the answer book of Syed Istifa Ali, whose roil number was 228934. The Examinations Committee had appointed a Sub-Committee for holding an enquiry and the Examinations Committee after giving opportunity to the petitioner to answer the questionnaire came to the conclusion that these two candidates had made use of unfair means from common source.
3. I have heard arguments of Sri A. Mannan and Sri K.S. Varma, Chief Standing Counsel. Following submissions were made by the petitioner's counsel in arguments :
1. There was breach of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as :(a) the petitioner was not supplied with a copy of the report of the Enquiry Committee;
(b) he was not provided with reasonable time to answer the questionnaire;
(c) no show cause notice before taking final decision was communicated to him; and
2. The finding of the Enquiry Sub-Committee
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
