Shaney Alam v. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad — 1984 DIGILAW 800 (ALL)

JUDGMENT A.N. Diskshita, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28-5-1984 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) cancelling his result for the Intermediate Examination of the year 1983. 2. The petitioner appeared in the Intermediate Examination of 1983 with Roll No. 112458 conducted by the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, hereinafter called the Board in the month of March/Apri11983. The Centre of the petitioner was Kisan Inter College, District Bareilly. The result of the Intermediate Examination was declared by the Board on 10-6-1983 through a daily Newspaper 'Navjiwan' published from Lucknow. In the said newspaper after the Roll No. 112458 (of the petitioner) the alphabet "W" was printed implying that the result has been withheld. Thereafter vide letter dated 11-8-83 the petitioner was informed that the result committee had taken a decision not to declare the result on the ground that the petitioner had used unfair means. The said letter was issued upon the report of the Examiner (Parikshak). It was further mentioned in the said letter that some delay is likely to be occasioned in the disposal of the matter and as such the petitioner was given an opportunity to fill in the form for the Intermediate Examination of the next year,(1984) lest the date for the submission of such forms may expire. It was also indicated that such permission for submitting the form is liable to be cancelled after the disposal of the enquiry and in case such permission is withdrawn then the Admission Fees tendered by the petitioner would be liable to refund. 3. The result of the petitioner was withheld on the report of the Examiner that unfair means were used by the petitioner while replying to question No. 5(a) of Part I of the Second Paper of English for the Intermediate Examination of 1983. It was further found that the answers to question 5(a) of the said paper, by the petitioner with Roll No. 112458 were identical and similar to the answers of Roll Nos. 112461 and 112469. A charge sheet (Arop Patra) was given to the petitioner and a spot enquiry was also conducted. The petitioner denied the allegations and stated that he has not copied from the copy of anyone nor has he permitted any other person to copy from his answer book. 112461 and 112469. A charge sheet (Arop Patra) was given to the petitioner and a spot enquiry was also conducted. The petitioner denied the allegations and stated that he has not copied from the copy of anyone nor has he permitted any other person to copy from his answer book. It was further mentioned in his reply that he has studiously pursued his studies for two years and no answers of the petitioner tallied with those of the other examinee. Lastly it was submitted by the petitioner that prior to taking of the decision his future prospects be also taken account of. 4. The Committee after taking into account the reply to the charge sheet and the material on record has taken the decision of cancelling the result of the petitioner for the Intermediate Examination of 1983. 5. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no opportunity was given to the petitioner and as such the decision of the Committee cancelling the result of the petitioner is illegal and unsustainable. We find no merit in this contention. The petitioner was served with a charge sheet to which he replied as has been indicated above. A spot enquiry was also conducted. The Committee thereupon taking into account the explanation of the petitioner and the material before it took the decision for the cancelling of the result of the petitioner. We find that adequate reasonable opportunity was afforded to the petitioner prior to the taking of the decision for the cancellation of his result. 6. Secondly it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that there was no material before the Committee to arrive at the conclusion that unfair means were used by the petitioner while replying to question 5(a) of the Second Paper in English and thus cancelling his result. 7. The answer books of the three roll numbers including that of the petitioner have been perused by us which were supplied by the learned standing counsel. 8. We find that on more than one occasion in the answer books of the three Roll Nos. including that of the petitioner the answers are identical and similar and succinctly finding such answers the Committee took the decision of cancelling the result and as such it cannot be argued that there was no material or evidence before the Committee. 8. We find that on more than one occasion in the answer books of the three Roll Nos. including that of the petitioner the answers are identical and similar and succinctly finding such answers the Committee took the decision of cancelling the result and as such it cannot be argued that there was no material or evidence before the Committee. Direct evidence of such copying may not be available and in such circumstances, circumstantial evidence and probabilities may be available to indicate that answers given by the delinquent examinee are the outcome of using unfair means. Adequate opportunity was given to the petitioner to submit his explanation and the committee after taking into account such explanation of the petitioner came to the conclusion that unfair means were used while replying to the question. Besides the totality of the circumstances and the probabilities are also to be taken into consideration and we clearly find while perusing the answers given by the petitioner to other questions that they are quite identical and similar to the answers given by the other two examinees. In the instant case there was ample evidence before the Committee to have taken an appropriate decision in the cancellation of the result of the petitioner. Insufficient or inadequacy of the material before the Committee would not be a ground for interference by the High Court. Likewise the reassessment of the evidence by the High Court is also not appropriate. The sacrosant fibres of the educational standards should not be tarnished by interfering with the decision of the committee merely on the ground that the view taken by the Committee is not appropriate and a different view can be taken. As has been discussed above we are clearly of the view that it would not be appropriate for the High Court to substitute its view by reassessing the evidence. Whatever evidence, may be meagre but clearly indicative of the using of the unfair means would justify the cancellation of the result by the Committee and the probabilities and circumstances even cannot be ignored. The widespread problem of copying in the examinations has attained such high epidemic magnitude that the very purity of the examinations has been put to stake. 9. It was contended by the learned standing counsel that the evil has to be curbed to maintain the education standard. The widespread problem of copying in the examinations has attained such high epidemic magnitude that the very purity of the examinations has been put to stake. 9. It was contended by the learned standing counsel that the evil has to be curbed to maintain the education standard. This view finds adequate support from the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in AIR 1979 All 209 : (1979 All LJ 676) Ghazanfar Rashid v. Secy. Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P. Allahabad, where an identical question of using of unfair means was considered and K. N. Singh, J. speaking for the court observed ........... the examination committees are entrusted with the duty of maintaining purity of examinations and if an examinee is found to have used unfair means at the examination. It is the duty of the examination committee to take action against an erring examinee to maintain educational standard"......... "direct evidence is available in some cases but in a large number of cases direct evidence is not available. In that situation the examination committee has of necessity to rely on the circumstantial evidence which may include the answer given by the examinee, the report of the Superintendent of the Centre. the Invigilator and the report of Experts and other attending circumstances........" 10. It was further observed...... If the examination committee relying on the report of the screening committee as well as on the answers of examinee bona fide arrives at the conclusion that the examinee used unfair means in answering the question, it is not open to the High Court to interfere with that decision merely because the High Court may take a different view on reassessment of those circumstances. It is the function of the appellate court to take a different view of the evidence and not the function of a supervisory court to interfere with the order on the ground of it different possible view. It is the function of the appellate court to take a different view of the evidence and not the function of a supervisory court to interfere with the order on the ground of it different possible view. While it is open to the High Court to interfere with the order of a quasi-judicial authority if it is not supported by any evidence or if the order is passed in contravention of the statutory provisions of law or in violation of the principles of natural justice, but the court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the order merely on the ground that the evidence available on the record is insufficient or inadequate or on the ground that a different view could possibly be taken on the evidence available on the record. The examination committee has jurisdiction to take decision in the matter of use of unfair means not only on direct evidence but also on probabilities and circumstantial evidence. There is scope for importing the principles of criminal trial while considering the probative value of probabilities and circumstantial evidence. The quasi-judicial authorities including the examination committee are not bound by technical rules of evidence and procedure as are applicable to courts." ..... "In the matter of adoption of unfair means, direct evidence may sometimes be available, but cases may arise where direct evidence is not available and the question will have to be considered in the light of probabilities and circumstantial evidence. This problem which the educational institutions have to face from time to time is a serious problem and unless there is justification to do so, the courts should be slow to interfere with the decision of the domestic tribunals in dealing with the validity of the impugned orders passed by the Universities under Article 226. The High Court is not sitting in appeal over the decision in question, its jurisdiction is limited and though it is true that, if the impugned order is not supported by any evidence at all, the High Court would be justified to quash that order. But the conclusion that the impugned order is not supported by any evidence must be reached after considering the question as to whether probabilities and circumstantial evidence do not justify the said conclusion. 11. But the conclusion that the impugned order is not supported by any evidence must be reached after considering the question as to whether probabilities and circumstantial evidence do not justify the said conclusion. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on AIR 1983 All 44 in Kumari Sandhya Sharma v. Board of High School and Intermediate Education's case. The facts of that case are at variance with the instant controversy. In the instant case there is ample evidence on record to prove the charge levelled against the petitioner and the decision as contained in the letter dated 28-5-1984 is not based on mere suspicion. There was intrinsic evidence on record warranting the cancellation of the result. The learned Standing Counsel has claimed that the committee constituted under the Regulations is possessed of such powers and is entrusted with the duty of maintaining purity in the examinations. 12. It was, however, urged by the learned Standing Counsel that the problem faced by the educational institutions is serious and has now surpassed all proportions. Anyhow in dealing with such matters the courts should be slow to interfere with the decisions of the Committee. We also find ample support from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1966 SC 875 in the case of Board of High School and Intermediate Education v. Bagleshwar Prasad where a similar question arose for the consideration of the Court. Gajendragadkar, J. speaking for the Court spoke thus "In the matter of adoption of unfair means, direct -evidence may some times be available. but case may arise where direct evidence is not available and the question will have to be considered in the light of probabilities and circumstantial evidence. This problem which the educational institutions have to face from time to time is a serious problem and unless there is justification to do so, the courts should be slow to interfere with the decision of the domestic tribunals appointed by the educational bodies like University. In dealing with the validity of the impugned orders passed by Universities under Article 226. the High Court is not sitting in appeal over the decision in question, its jurisdiction is limited and though it is true that if the impugned order is not supported by any evidence at all, the High Court would be justified to quash that order. In dealing with the validity of the impugned orders passed by Universities under Article 226. the High Court is not sitting in appeal over the decision in question, its jurisdiction is limited and though it is true that if the impugned order is not supported by any evidence at all, the High Court would be justified to quash that order. But the conclusion that the impugned order is not supported by any evidence must be reached after considering the question as to whether probabilities and circumstantial evidence do not justify the said conclusion." 13. In view of the above discussions the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. We, however, make no order as to costs.