Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 973 (PAT)

Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar, Bihar v. Ram Prit Rai

2001-10-12

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD, S.N.JHA

body2001
Judgment 1. Respondent no.1 i.e. writ petitioner Ram Prit Rai, being aggrieved by order dated 19.11.1997 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) cancelling the result of Annual Praveshika Examination 1997 conducted by the appellant-Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar at Ajit Kumar Mehta Shikshan Sansthan, Umakant Nagar, Samastipur, filed writ application before this Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court by the impugned order set aside the said order and directed the appellant to publish the result of the writ petitioner and other examinees within four weeks from the date of production of the order. 2. Aggrieved by the same, appellant has preferred this appeal under Clause X Chapter 13. of the Letters Patent of the Court. 3. Bereft of unnecessary details facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the writ petitioner besides 74 students appeared in Praveshika examination at Ajit Kumar Mehta Sanskrit Sikshan Sansthan Centre. According to the petitioner, examination was held between the period 23.6.1997 to 28.6.1997. District Education Officer by its letter dated 25.7.1997, wrote to the appellant stating therein that when he came to know that Ajit Kumar Mehta Shikshan Sansthan. Umakant Nagar, Samastipur is the centre of examination, from which the writ petitioner appeared, he made inspection and found that examination was not conducted in legal manner and only answer-books from the examinees were collected at the centre. In the letter, the District Education Officer further informed that the Centre, from which the petitioner is alleged to have appeared in the examination is a hut (jhopri numa makan), which is not at all suitable, for the examination. In the aforesaid premises, the District Education Officer recommended tor cancellation of the examination and further advised to take appropriate disciplinary action against the Centre Superintendent. On receipt of the aforesaid communication, the appeiiant by letter dated 9.9.1997, called for explanation from the Centre Superintendent as to why the result of the examination be not cancelled. 4. It is further relevant here to state that the District Magistrate also by letter dated 4th of August, 1997 communicated to the appellant that when District Education Officer came to know about the holding of the examination at the Centre in question, he visited the Centre but the examination was over by then. 4. It is further relevant here to state that the District Magistrate also by letter dated 4th of August, 1997 communicated to the appellant that when District Education Officer came to know about the holding of the examination at the Centre in question, he visited the Centre but the examination was over by then. He further wrote that on enquiry, it has come to his knowledge that answer-books were handed over to the examinees and they wrote their papers at home and the same were only collected at the examination Centre. In tune with what was suggested by the District Education Officer, the District Magistrate also recommended for cancellation of the examination. 5. The Centre Superintendent sent the reply dated 15.11.1997 taking the stand that no irregularity has been committed in the conduct of examination and the District Education Officer who had submitted the report, had not visited the Centre during the examination. 6. On consideration of the report of the District Magistrate and District Education Officer and the reply of the Centre Superintendent, appeiiant decided to cancel the result of the examination. 7. Aggrieved by the same, writ petitioner preferred the writ application, which came up for consideration before a learned Single Judge of this Court, wherein it was urged that the impugned order based on report of the District Education Officer deserves to be quashed because, close scrutiny of the report does not show that the examination was not held in accordance with law. It was pointed out that in the absence of specific material in the report of the District Education Officer and further; there being no adverse report of the Centre Superintendent and the Observer appointed by the appellant, conclusion arrived at by it that examination was not conducted in fair manner, is incorrect and impugned decision based on that, cannot be allowed to stand. The learned Single Judge, on appreciation of the materials laid before him, held the report of the District Education Officer to be doubtful, so also the report of the District Magistrate and ultimately held that there were no tangible materials to justify cancellation of the examination. 8. Mr. The learned Single Judge, on appreciation of the materials laid before him, held the report of the District Education Officer to be doubtful, so also the report of the District Magistrate and ultimately held that there were no tangible materials to justify cancellation of the examination. 8. Mr. Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the report of the District Education Officer and the District Magistrate in no uncertain term indicate that examination was not held at the Centre and only answer-books were handed over to the examinees and they wrote papers not at the Centre and answer-books were collected at the Centre and hence to maintain the purity and sanctity; of the examination, the appellant decided to cancel the result of the examination, which ought not to have been interfered by this court in exercise of its jurisdiction. 9. Mr. Shravan Kumar, learned counsel, however, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner-respondent no.1, contends that the reports of the District Education Officer and the District Magistrate are vague and cryptic in nature and they having not visited the Centre during the examination, appellant ought not to have cancelled the examination, relying on their reports and the learned Single Judge rightly held that the report of the District Education Officer is neither reliable nor spells out any material to substantiate his inference that the examination in question was not held in accordance with law. He points out that notwithstanding information to the District Education Officer, he did not visit the Centre during the course of examination and hence his report can not form the basis for cancellation of the examination. For the same reason, the report of the District Magistrate is not fit to be reiied on, the learned counsel contends. 10. Having appreciated the rival submissions, I find substance in the submission of Sri Shukla. True it is that the District Education Officer and District Magistrate did not visit the Centre during the course of examination but this itself shall not render their reports un-worthy of reliance. The District Education Officer has categorically stated in his report that when he visited the Centre, the examination was over and on further enquiry, he learnt that the examination was not held properiy and the answer-books were only collected at the Centre. The District Education Officer has categorically stated in his report that when he visited the Centre, the examination was over and on further enquiry, he learnt that the examination was not held properiy and the answer-books were only collected at the Centre. He went on to state that Centre has hut like structure, which is not suitable for holding of the examination. The report of the District Education Officer is based on local inspection, which has been endorsed by the District Magistrate. There is no malafide alleged against either the District Education Officer or the District Magistrate. On consideration of the reports and stand of the Centre Superintendent, appellant chose to cancel the result of the examination. In the face of the same, notwithstanding absence of any adverse report from the Centre Superintendent or the Observer appointed by the appellant, I am of the opinion that the appellant did not err in relying on their reports to cancel the examination. 11. I am of the opinion that when there are conflicting reports, it shall be appropriate that the decision is left to the discretion of the authority. After all the responsibility to maintain the purity and sanctily of the examination is with the appellant. In matter like this it shall be hazardous lor the court to substitute its opinion. It is well settled that when relevant consideration have been taken note of and irrelevant aspects have been eschewed from consideration and that no relevant aspect has been ignored and decision has nexus with the facts on record, the same cannot be attacked on merits. Judicial review is permissible to the extent of finding whether the process in reaching the decision has been observed correctly and not the decision as such. 12. To put the record straight, it is relevant here to state that Sri Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant tried to assail the finding of the learned Single Judge holding that District Education Officer was given prior information about the holding of the examination, whereas Sri Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.1 attempted to support the said finding but in view of what has been held above, I deem it inexpedient to go into this question. For the same reason, I would refrain from entering into the merits of the submissions of the learned counsel on the question of maintainability of the writ application. 13. For the same reason, I would refrain from entering into the merits of the submissions of the learned counsel on the question of maintainability of the writ application. 13. From what has been found above, I am of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the materials on record do not show that the examination was not held in accordance with law, is erroneous and with deepest respect to him, I am constrained to set aside the same. 14. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to the costs. S.N.Jha 15 I agree.