Back
Allahbad High Court
G.C.MATHUR,A.K.KIRTY,H.N.SETH
Triambak Pati Tripathi - Appellant
Versus
The Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P., Allahabad - Respondent
Decided On : 03/09/1972
EXAMINATION - UNFAIR MEANS - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - APPLICABILITY - PROCEDURE FOR INQUIRY - REQUIREMENTS - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW - DISCRIMINATION - PROHIBITION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a candidate for the High School Examination of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P., was suspected of using unfair means in answering two questions in the Science papers. The Examinations Committee, after receiving a report from the examiner and the Head Examiner, set up a screening committee to examine the answer books of various candidates, including the petitioner. The screening committee reported that the petitioner was suspected of using unfair means in answering the two questions. The Examinations Committee then withheld the petitioner's result and set up an 'on the spot Enquiry Sub-Committee' to inquire into the matter. The Sub-Committee visited the petitioner's center, handed over the charge sheets to him, explained the allegations, and obtained his explanation. The Sub-Committee submitted its report to the Examinations Committee, which resolved to cancel the petitioner's examination result for the year 1971 and debar him from appearing in the Board's Examination for the year 1972.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Examinations Committee acted quasi-judicially in dealing with the cases of examinees using unfair means in the examination hall and that the principles of natural justice applied to the proceedings before it. The Court further held that the procedure adopted by the Examinations Committee did not violate the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was given an opportunity to explain the allegations against him, to show cause against the proposed punishment, and to have his say in the matter. The Court also held that there was material on the record to support the Examinations Committee's finding that the petitioner was guilty of using unfair means in answering the two questions. Finally, the Court held that there was no discrimination in the treatment of the petitioner and another candidate, Jai Ram Pandey, who was caught using unfair means red-handed, as the two cases were different.
Issues: 1. Whether the Examinations Committee acted quasi-judicially in dealing with the cases of examinees using unfair means in the examination hall? 2. Whether the principles of natural justice apply to the proceedings before the Examinations Committee? 3. Whether the procedure adopted by the Examinations Committee violated the principles of natural justice? 4. Whether there was material on the record to support the Examinations Committee's finding that the petitioner was guilty of using unfair means in answering the two questions? 5. Whether there was discrimination in the treatment of the petitioner and another candidate, Jai Ram Pandey, who was caught using unfair means red-handed?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Examinations Committee acted quasi-judicially in dealing with the cases of examinees using unfair means in the examination hall, as it was required to act in a fair and impartial manner and to give the examinees an opportunity to be heard. 2. The Court held that the principles of natural justice apply to the proceedings before the Examinations Committee, as it was required to act in a fair and impartial manner and to give the examinees an opportunity to be heard. 3. The Court held that the procedure adopted by the Examinations Committee did not violate the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was given an opportunity to explain the allegations against him, to show cause against the proposed punishment, and to have his say in the matter. 4. The Court held that there was material on the record to support the Examinations Committee's finding that the petitioner was guilty of using unfair means in answering the two questions, as the petitioner's answer book contained intrinsic evidence that he had used unfair means. 5. The Court held that there was no discrimination in the treatment of the petitioner and another candidate, Jai Ram Pandey, who was caught using unfair means red-handed, as the two cases were different.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Examinations Committee's decision to cancel the petitioner's examination result for the year 1971 and debar him from appearing in the Board's Examination for the year 1972 was valid.
H.N. SETH, J. : - The petitioner Triyambakpati Tripathi was a candidate for the High School Examination of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P., (hereinafter referred to as the Board) held in the year 1971. He appeared in that examination as a regular student of Belpur Higher Secondary School from the Higher Secondary School Kempiarganj Centre. On receipt of a complaint that there was mass copying at that Centre, the examiners concerned were alerted and were required to evaluate the answer books carefully and to report if there was any indication of use of unfair means by the candidates appearing at that Centre. The examiner of Science Second Paper reported that he suspected use of unfair means by a number of candidates in answering question No. 2 of that paper. The report of the examiner was endorsed also by the Head Examiner concerned. Thereupon the Examinations Committee of the Board got the answer books of the candidates appearing at that centre examined by a screening committee consisting of experts in the subject. Members of the screening Committee examined the answer books of various candidates and reported that the petitioner along with other candidates was suspected to have used unfair means in answering not only question No. 2 of the Science Second paper but also in answering question No. 1 of the Science 1st paper. The Examinations Committee then withheld the result of the petitioner and other candidates suspected of using unfair means and resolved that an 'on the spot Enquiry Sub-Committee' be set up to enquire into the matter in detail and to submit its report before the Examinations Committee. It also framed charge-sheets mentioning the material which indicated the use of unfair means by the petitioner and other candidates. Copies of the two charge sheets given to the petitioner have been filed as annexures 'A' and 'B' to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Board. These charge-sheets further required the petitioner and others to explain why proceedings under Rule 2 (1) of Chapter VI of the Board's calendar be not taken against them.
2. The spot Enquiry Sub-Committee visited petitioner's centre on 28th August, 1971, and handed over the two charge-sheets prepared by the Examinations Committee to him. Members of the Spot Enquiry Committee explained the allegations to the petitioner and showed him the answer books of other candidates about which reference had been made in one of the charge-sheets. The petitioner gave his explanation in respect of the allegations in the charge-sheets and then subscribed his signatures to a declaration that he had given his explanation voluntarily and after fully understanding the matter, that the relevant answer books had been shown to him and that he had nothing further to say in the matter. The Spot Enquiry Sub-Committee submitted its report to the Examinations Committee which after examining the answer books, the charge sheets of the candidate, the explanation given by him and the report of the Spot Enquiry Sub-Committee resolved, vide its resolution No. 178 dated October 6, 1971, that the High School Examination result of the petitioner for the year 1971 be cancelled, and he be also debarred from the Board's Examination for the year 1972. The resolution passed by the Examinations Committee was duly approved by the Chairman of the Board. This decision was communicated to the petitioner through the principal of the Institution concerned.
3. On receipt of this communication, the petitioner filed the present writ petition before this Court contending that there was no material before the examinations committee for finding him guilty of having used unfair means at the examination, and that its decision was based merely on surmises and conjectures. He pleaded that the procedure adopted by the Examinations Committee and the Sub-Committee for punishing the petitioner violated the principles of natural justice and as such the order passed
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
