1. Removal of a Board member under Section 15(2) of the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Act, 1965, following past misconduct as an examination supervisor. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1993 Supreme(SC) 1055
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(BEFORE R.M. SAHAI, N.P. SINGH AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.)
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Versus
PRABHU.
Civil Appeal No. 4450 of 1989, decided on November 3, 1993
Important Points
The Court held that past conduct affecting integrity can be deemed detrimental to a Board's functioning. Additionally, High Courts exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 must consider public interest and social impact, refusing to interfere if quashing an order would result in greater harm to society.
Subject
Administrative Law - Judicial Review
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.226
MAHARASHTRA SPECIFIED CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ELECTIONS TO COMMITTEE RULES: R.15(2)
MAHARASHTRA SPECIFIED CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ELECTIONS TO COMMITTEE RULES: R.15(2)
Headnote
Constitution of India,1950 Article 226 - Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Act, 1965 - Section 15(2) - Committee of experts - Cancelled results of the candidates - Order cancelling the examination - examination for first year engineering students was held at Nilanga. respondent, who was a lecturer in a polytechnic college, was appointed as a supervisor at examination centre - Later on complaints of mass copying were received - On recommendation of a Committee of experts, cancelled results of candidates who appeared from centre and debarred from appearing in examination for next two years - It also decided not to entrust any examination duty in future to respondent - Director of Technical Education issued a circular debarring many lecturers, including respondent - Some of students approached the High Court by way of Writ Petition Nos. against order passed by University – Held, Court should have refused to interfere in exercise of its equity jurisdiction as facts of case did not warrant interference. What could be more harmful to society than appointing respondent as member of the Board, a position of importance and responsibility was found responsible for mass copying at examination centre of which he was a supervisor - It shakes confidence and faith of society in system and is prone to encouraging even honest and sincere to deviate from their path - It is responsibility of High Court as custodian of the Constitution to maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for sake of justice and refusing to interfere where it is against social interest and public good - appeal succeeds and is allowed
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether Section 15(2) permits removal based on past conduct or only present activities, and whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226. (Para 1 , 2 )
3. Appointing a person with an unacceptable social image due to professional misconduct is detrimental to the Board; discretionary relief must not cause greater harm to society. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
4. Discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be exercised if quashing an order results in greater harm to society or undermines public confidence in the system. (Para 4 , 5 )
5. Appeal allowed; High Court order quashing the removal of the Board member set aside; writ petition dismissed. (Para 6 )
6. Does the phrase activities are detrimental to the functioning of a Board include past conduct that renders a person unfit for appointment?
Yes. The court held that appointing a member who lacks an acceptable social image, such as a teacher found responsible for permitting mass copying, is ipso facto detrimental to the Board. (Para 3 )
7. Under what circumstances should a High Court refrain from exercising its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution?
The court should refrain from exercising discretionary power if quashing an order results in greater harm to society or is against the social interest and public good. (Para 4 , 5 )
8. Can a technical breach in a show-cause notice be overlooked by the court in the interest of social justice?
Yes. Even if an order is vitiated by a technical breach or improper notice, the court may refuse to interfere if the appointment of the individual would shake public confidence in the system. (Para 5 )
Judgment
SAHAI, J.- The main question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal, directed against judgment and order of the Bombay High Court, is if the High Court correctly construed Section 15(2) of the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). And even if it be so then whether it was an eminently fit and proper case for exercise of discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. In April-May 1984 the examination for first year engineering students was held at Nilanga. The respondent, who was a lecturer in a polytechnic college, was appointed as a supervisor at the examination centre. Later on complaints of mass copying were received. And the University of Marathwada, on recommendation of a Committee of experts, cancelled results of the candidates who appeared from that centre and debarred them, further, from appearing in examination for next two years. It also decided not to entrust any examination duty in future to the respondent. On August 22, 1984 the Director of Technical Education issued a circular debarring many lecturers, including the respondent, from being assigned any examination duty. Some of the students approached the High Court by way of Writ Petition Nos. 808 and 809 of 1984 against the order passed by the University. On December 7, 1984 their petition was partly allowed. The order cancelling the examination was upheld. But the order debarring them from appearing in future examination was quashed as the order was passed without affording any opportunity. The Director of Technical Education, on March 21, 1985, issued a letter withdrawing the earlier circular issued by it in view of the judgment in the writ petitions. In March 1986 the respondent was nominated as a member of the State Board of Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education at its Aurangabad Divisional Board. It appears after his appointment the University informed the Government that the respondent was not a proper person to have been appointed as a member of the Board as it was during his supervisorship that mass copying had taken place in one of the centres and the results of the candidates who appeared from that centre were cancelled. On being apprised of it the Government issued a show-cause notice on October 22, 1986 to the respondent that he having been found to have failed in discharge of his duty as supervisor at the examination centre Nilanga, honestly and diligently, the Government was of the view that his continuance as member of the Board was not conducive to the proper functioning of the Board and, therefore, it proposed to remove him from the membership. This notice was replied by the respondent and it was claimed by him that the action had been taken against him on suspicion. It was stated that the decision of University having been set aside by the High Court and the Director of Education having withdrawn the circular nothing survived against him. The Government did not agree with the explanation and by order dated September 16, 1987 cancelled membership of the respondent. This order was challenged by way of writ petition. It was allowed and the order cancelling membership was quashed as ultra vires as aplain reading of Section 15(2) of the Act indicated that the Government could take action, only, if it was of opinion that the activities of the respondent were detrimental to or obstructing the proper functioning of the Board. The Bench held that since the show-cause notice issued by the Government did not show anything to this effect and it merely stated that respondents activities were not conducive to the functioning of the Board the objectionable conduct of the respondent in April and May 1984 could not by any stretch of imagination amount to activities which were detrimental to or obstruct the proper functioning of the Board, therefore, the order removing the respondent from the Board was bad.
3. For proper appreciation of
