JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner, Dhur Nath has filed this writ petition in the capacity of father and natural guardian of his minor son Sushil Nath Jogi Learned counsel for the respondent, Board of Secondary Education for Rajasthan, Ajmer (hereinafter called the Board') raised an objection that the writ petition having not been filed in the name of Sushil Nath Jogi, it is liable to be dismissed on this short ground. As a matter of fact the writ petition should have been filed in the name of minor Sushil Nath through his father and natural guardian Dhur Nath. But the objection is merely of form and not of substance. In view of this I do not think it proper to throw out this writ petition on such technical ground. 2. The petitioner has come forward with a case that his son Sushil Nath, aged about 17 years, appeared as a private student in the examination of Higher Secondary held at Centre Kalu in Tehsil Lunkaranasar, in March, 1982. The examination for Civics second paper was held on 22nd March, 1982. After the entire examinations of Higher Secondary were over, Sushil Nath received a letter Annexere 2 dated 7th June, 1982, informing that the concerned examiner of Civil is Second paper reported the Board that in the answer book of Sushil Nath, a hand written chit was found, in which relevant material regarding the Subject was mentioned in this letter it was further mentioned that Sushil Nath had copied while replying question No. 2. Sushil Nath was, therefore, directed to send explanation within a week as bringing of improper material in examination hall was contrary to and punishable under the Board's Rules. Sushil Nath brought annexure 2 to the notice of the petitioner. The petitioner made inquiries from his son and per his version he drafted a reply and sent the same to the Baard on 14th June, 1982 by registered A D. The petitioner's son the a received a letter Annexure 4 dated 17th August, 1982 in which it was stated that the case of the petitioner's son was put before the Results Committee. It was further mentioned that the Results Committee on inquiry found the allegations levelled by the office as correct and the explanation submitted by petitioner's son was found unsatisfactory. It was further mentioned that the Results Committee on inquiry found the allegations levelled by the office as correct and the explanation submitted by petitioner's son was found unsatisfactory. It was further mentioned that petitioner's son was given an opportunity of personal hearing and if he has to say anything ill his defence, he may appear before the Inquiry Officer on 26th August, 1982. at 11 am. The petitioner along with his son went to Ajmer on 26th August, 1982. A request was made to allow the petitioner also to be present during the inquiry but such prayer was rejected by the Assistant Secretary of the Board. A written application for making such request and the order rejecting the prayer has been filed as Annexure 9. In view of these circumstances the petitioner's son alone appeared before the Inquiry Officer and according to the petitioner about one hour's time was taken in the inquiry. The petitioner was also called subsequently by the Inquiry Officers and during the brief conversation he was told that the petitioners son had refused to admit the allegations levelled against him and also refused to give in writing that the allegations made against him were correct. The petitioner then told the Inquiry Officers that as his son had not admitted the allegations within a span of one hour's incuiry this may kindly be recorded. The petitioner was then asked by the Inquiry Officer to wait outside but the petitioner's son was allowed to come out of the room after about an hour. The petitioner's son also informed the petitioner that the allegation levlled against him were completely untrue and ai such he had not admitted the allegations. It is further alleged that petitioner's sou also informed the petitioner that the inquiry officers after 11/2 hours questioning and persuasive force made to write a dictation as dictated by the Inquiry Officer and made the petitioner's son to sign the same. The petitioner's son also informed that he had seen the alleged hand written chit for the first time and he lard in fact not copied the answer to question No. 2 of Civics second paper from any chit whatsoever. 3. The petitioner's son also informed that he had seen the alleged hand written chit for the first time and he lard in fact not copied the answer to question No. 2 of Civics second paper from any chit whatsoever. 3. Petitioner subsequently come to know from Rajasthan Patrika Daily' dated 3rd September, 1982, that the examination of petitioner's son had been cancelled for the year 1982 and he had been debarred to appear in the examinations to be held its the year 1983. Petitioner then sent a letter on 9th Sept., 1982 to Secretary of the Board that the action taken by the Board was completely illegal and contrary to law Petitioner further mentioned that the decision of the Board was in violation of the principles of natural justice and factually also it was baseless as the same was based on mere suspicion. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 4. It was contended by Mr. Surana, learned counsel for the petitioner that the action taken by the Board is completely contrary to the provisions of Rajasthan Secondary Education Act, 1957 and Rajasthan Secondary Education Regulations, 1957. It is further submitted that the letter dated 17th August, 1982, (Annexure 4) of the Board clearly goes to show that an inquiry was conducted by the Results Committee in the absence of the petitioner and his son. The letter Annexure 4 was not accompanied by any report or finding, of Results Committee. The petitioner's son was not made aware of any material on the basis of which the Results Committee was convinced of the correctness of the allegations levelled against him. The case of any material or other evidence by the Result: Committee was not made known to the petitioner's son and this was completely in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is also argued that petitioner's son was a minor and in all fairness the petitioner should have been allowed to appear before the Inquiry Officer along with his son. No witnesses were produced before the Inquiry Officer and petitioner's son was only shown a hand-written chit and was only interrogated about the same and was pressurised to admit that the chit was in his hand-writing. The petitioner's son vehemently contradicted the allegations lavelled against him before the inquiry officers. No witnesses were produced before the Inquiry Officer and petitioner's son was only shown a hand-written chit and was only interrogated about the same and was pressurised to admit that the chit was in his hand-writing. The petitioner's son vehemently contradicted the allegations lavelled against him before the inquiry officers. He was not confronted with any conclusions of the Results Committee or with any inquiry report on the basis of which the Results Committee had come to the conclusion that the allegations against the petitioner's son were correct and they had found the explanation of the petitioners son as not satisfactory. It was also argued by Mr. Surana that according to Chapter X of the Regulations the Results Committee of the Board consists of the following members : (1)-The Chairman, (2)-The Director of Education, and (3)-Three Heads of Institutions from High Schools, Intermediate Colleges and Higher Secondary Schools and one from each nominated by the Chairman every year and the Secretary. Letter Annexure 4 dated 17th August, 1982 goes to show that the matter was put before the Results Committee. The letter further discloses that the Results Committee after inquiry came to the conclusion that the allegations levelled against the petitioner's son were correct and the explanation given by petitioner's son was not satisfactory. It is patently evident from the above facts that the inquiry had been conducted by the Results Committee in the absence of the petitioner's son and he was never made aware and served with any proceedings of the Results Committee. It is further submitted that the Results Committee had no power to appoint any inquiry officer and delegate its own essential function i.e. of personal hearing. It was against the principles of natural justice for the Results Committee for having arrived at the conclusion that the explanation given by the petitioner's son was not satisfactory and to appoint an inquiry officer, as this amounted to a prior decision taken by the Results Committee. It has been further argued that the petitioner's son is in dark till this day whether the Results Committee had perused the report of the inquiry officers dated 26th August, 1982 and whether such report of the inquiry officers was at all submitted or not before the Results Committee. The charges levelled against the petitioner's son were completely vague. It has been further argued that the petitioner's son is in dark till this day whether the Results Committee had perused the report of the inquiry officers dated 26th August, 1982 and whether such report of the inquiry officers was at all submitted or not before the Results Committee. The charges levelled against the petitioner's son were completely vague. There is no report of any invigilator or in charge of the examination to hold that the petitioner's son had used any unfair means in the examination hall. There was no material with the Results Committee to hold that the petitioner's son was in pessession of any hand-written chit in the examination hall. The alleged hand- written chit was shown to the petitioner's son by the Inquiry Officer for the first time on 26th August, 1982. The petitioner's son had stated before the Inquiry Officers that the alleged hand-written chit was not in his hand writing nor he used the same in the examination hall. In view of these circumstances the entire procedure adopted by the Board is violative of the principles of natural justice. 5. Mr. Surana also argued that the Results Committee which has taken the final decision had never given any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner's son and an opportunity of hearing given by the Inquiry Officers, who were delegated authority, is no hearing at all and is thus contrary to well established principles that the authority, which is vested with the power to decide the matter, should give an opportunity of personal hearing. 6. Reply to show cause notice has been filed by the Board. In the reply it has been alleged that the explanation submitted by the petitioner's son was considered by the Results Committee and the same having not been found satisfactory after due consideration of the entire matter an opportunity of personal hearing was given before the Inquiry Officers. In Annexure 4, it was clearly mentioned that Sushil Nath was to appear before the Inquiry Officers on 26th, August, 1982 and in case he required an inspection of any document, answer book etc., in relation to the allegations made against him they shall also be shown to him at the time he appeared for personal hearing. Sushil Nath was thus afforded full opportunity of explanation, personal hearing etc. to submit his defence in the matter. Sushil Nath was thus afforded full opportunity of explanation, personal hearing etc. to submit his defence in the matter. The prayer of Sushil Nath for permitting his father to be present during inquiry was rightly disallowed. Sushil Nath appeared in Higher Secondary Examination and had attained an age of discretion. The petitioner's presence was not at all required during the inquiry since the petitioner had no personal knowledge of any event relating to the allegations made against Sushil Nath. It is emphatically denied that Sushil Nath was questioned for 1 hours as alleged and was forced to write a dictation. Sushil Nath was put simple questions by the Inquiry Officers during the course of inquiry relating to the allegations made against him, and whatever he stated during the course of inquiry, was got recorded in is own hand. It is further alleged that though Sushil Nath stated that the writing of the chit was not in his hand nor he had copied from it but he frankly admitted in his statement that : ijUrq mRrj iqLrd esa iz'u la0 2 ds mRrj tgka ea=he.My dk mRrjnkf;Ro fy[kk gS og Hkkx fpV esa fy[ks Hkkx ls leku :i ls feyrk gSA ijUrq mlls vkxs dk Hkkx ugha fey jgk gSA It is further stated that the Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry very sympathetically and got recorded the statement whatever was voluntarily uttered by Sushil Nath. The Inquiry Officer had recorded the statement of Sushil Nath to the effect that the chit found in the answer-hook did not belong to him and further that it was not in his hand-writing. This clearly goes to show that his statement as uttered by him was recorded correctly and - the allegation that the inquiry officer exercised any pressure on him is totally wild and baseless. It is further alleged that the Results Committee considered the report of the concerned examiner in which it was informed that the candidate bearing roll No. 209300 is suspected to have copied question No. 2 from the hand-written slip which was found in his answer-book in Part-B in respect of Higher Secondary Examination, 1982 of Civics Second paper and as such resolution No. 6 dated 26th August, 1982 was passed to withhold the result of the said candidate and to give him an opportunity to explain the same. After the receipt of explanation of' Sushil Nath, the Inquiry Officer trade inquiries and recorded the statement of Sushil Nath after giving an opportunity of personal hearing. Thereupon the Results Committee considered the report of the examiner, the hand-written chit found in the answer book of the candidate Sushil Nath and the allegations made against hire, the explanation furnished by Sushil Nath and also his statement recorded by the Inquiry Officer and after deep consideration of the aforesaid material, the Results Committee vide its resolution dated 31st August, 1982, a decision to cancel the result of the candidate bearing roll number 209300 and to debar him from appearing in any examination of the Board for the year 1983. 7. It has been further alleged by the Board in its reply that the report of the findings of the Results Committee was not required to be conveyed to the petitioners son under any law or any statute. There is no allegation of any malafide against the Inquiry Officer. The inquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer was fair and impartial. There is no violation of any provisions of Chapter X of the Regulations. The petitioner has been unable to show that any prejudice has been caused to his son in the procedure adopted in the present case. No grievance with regard to the vagueness of the charge sheet was made at any stage during the inquiry and it is absolutely an after-thought. No report from the invigilator or in charge of the examination hall was necessary inasmuch as the matter came to the notice of the concerned examiner about the chit found in the answer-book, and which had been used while answering question No. 2. The Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry on behalf of the Results Committee and opportunity of personal heating was given before the it inquiry Officers and there was no necessity to give further opportunity of personal hearing by the Results Committee. 8. Question of fairness in conducting an inquiry and violation of principles of natural justice are matters to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case. It cannot be denied that in matters relating to use of unfair means by a candidate in the examination, the details of the charges must be made known to the candidate. 8. Question of fairness in conducting an inquiry and violation of principles of natural justice are matters to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case. It cannot be denied that in matters relating to use of unfair means by a candidate in the examination, the details of the charges must be made known to the candidate. The candidate should be given full opportunity of explaining his defence and an opportunity of hearing at some stage. In the present case, according to the petitioner's own saying, the age of Sushil Nath is 17 years. He had thus attained the age of discretion and the charges were to be explained by him alone and as such there was no illegality if the petitioner was not allowed to remain present during the course of inquiry. I am not satisfied that any prejudice was caused to Sushil Nath on the ground that his father was not allowed to remain present along with him before the inquiry Officer. The manner in which the statement of Sushil Nath has been recorded goes to show that it was correctly recorded and the allegation of pressurisation on him is totally false. There is no charge of mala fide against the Inquiry Officers. 9. Results Committee is no doubt the final authority to take decision with regard to use of unfair means by a candidate in the examination, but it is not possible for it to conduct the inquiry. According to the petitioner himself there are 6 members in this committee and in my view there is no prohibition under any provisions of the Act or Regulations to appoint an inquiry Officer by the Results Committee. The inquiry Officer in such circumstances conducts an inquiry on behalf of the Results Committee and gives a full opportunity of hearing to the candidate and there is no further requirement of giving personal hearing by the Results Committee. Results Committee has taken the decision alter thoroughly considering the examiner's report, explanation of Sushil Nath, his statement recorded before the Inquiry Officer and other material on record, it cannot be said to be a case of taking decision on no material available on record. There is clunching evidence found against the petitioner's son. Handwritten chit was found in the answer-book of the petitioner's son which was detected by the examiner. There is clunching evidence found against the petitioner's son. Handwritten chit was found in the answer-book of the petitioner's son which was detected by the examiner. Sushil Nath had used this chit in answering some portion of question No. 2. There is only a bald denial that the alleged chit was not in his hand- writing nor he uses the same in answering any question. However, he had to admit in his statement as quoted above that some portion of answer of question No. 2 was identical with the portion written in the chit. Board has also placed on record Annexre R3, a copy of proceedings of Results Committee dated 28th June, 1982. In Resolution No 6 it has been observed that the examiner had informed that in answer-book of Roll No. 209300 a handwritten chit on both sides was found in part 'B' of the answer-book. It has been further observed that according to the examiner, the candidate had used the chit in answering the question No. 2. The examiner had also raised a suspicion that the candidate had used similar kind of chits in answering other questions as the candidate had twice attempted to answer the questions No. 6 and 7. Taking all these factors into consideration it was resolved vide resolution No. 6 to withhold the result of Roll No. 209300 and an opportunity may be given to the candidate personally for clearing his position. Thereafter, inquiry officer was appointed and the Results Committee in its meeting held on 31st August, 1982, passed resolution No. 16. In this resolution No. 16 it is clearly mentioned that the Results Committee took into consideration inquiry officers' report, examiner's report, hand-written chit found in the answer-book of the candidate, charges levelled against the candidate, explanation submitted by the candidate, and the statement given by the candidate before the Inquiry Officer. Thereafter, a decision was taken to cancel the examination of the petitioner of 1982 and to debar him from appearing in any examination of the Board of 1983. 10. There is a tendency growing in our country these days of using unfair means by the candidates. It is not possible for educational authorities to conduct a detailed inquiry in the matter as done in the courts of law. It would require months and years to hold such inquiry of large number of students using unfair means as detected every year. It is not possible for educational authorities to conduct a detailed inquiry in the matter as done in the courts of law. It would require months and years to hold such inquiry of large number of students using unfair means as detected every year. In view of these circumstance the grievence of the petitioner in this case that no witnesses were examined appears to be futile. It is also nowhere on the record to show that the petitioner wanted to produce any witness in defence and the same was disallowed by the Inquiry Officer. The chit was found in the answer-book of Sushil Nath by the examiner. Neither there is any allegation nor any reason to hold that the examiner would himself implant such chit in the answer-book of Sushil Nath. Thus, taking in view the entire facts and circumstances of this case I aM fully convinced that no principle of natural justice has been violated nor there is violation of any provision of Act or Regulations. 11. Following cases were cited at the bar : (1) Indra Methi v. Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer : 1974 R LW 230, (2) Kumari Sandhya Sharma v. Board of High School and Intermediate Education U. P., Allahabad , (3) Mrs. Leela Jain v. State of Rajasthan and Others , (4) Ghazanfar Rashid v. Secretary. Board of High School and Intermediate Education U. P.. Allahabad and others , (5) Board of High School & Intermediate Education U. P. Allahabad and another v. Bagleshwar Prasad and Anr , (6) Suresh Koshy Goorge v. University of Kerala & Ors. 12. I do not propose to discuss the above authorities as the question of violation of principles of natural justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each individual case. 13. In the result, I do not find any force in this writ petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. *******