Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 991 (MP)

Shashikala Singh v. State of M. P.

2002-10-27

ARUN MISHRA

body2002
ORDER Arun Mishra, J. 1. Petitioner appeared in Class-XII examination from Center No. 32076 in English General. In the mark-sheet, she was awarded zero mark due to using of unfair means. The petitioner submits that result was put on website and petitioner was declared to have passed in English (General). 2. A return has been filed by the respondent No. 2 pointing out that at the Examination Center No. 32076, report was received that students had indulged in mass-copying in English General. Matter was put up before the Chairman. The mark-sheets were withheld. From the Center in the question only four students indulged in copying. Thus, it is clear that the case of mass-copying was not found and result of other candidates was declared. 3. Since this is not the case of mass-copying as is apparent from the return and result of others had been declared, no case of unfair means was registered against petitioner in the examination hall and case of mass-copying has not been found. In all fairness, petitioner ought to have heard before cancelling the examination in accordance with the decisions in Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. Allahabad vs. Ghanshyam Das Gupta & others, AIR 1962 SC 1110 , Rajesh Kumar & another vs. Institute of Engineering (India), AIR 1998 SC 5 and AIR 1991 SCW 879 . 4. The Supreme Court in Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. Allahabad vs. Ghanshyam Das Gupta & others, AIR 1962 SC 1110 , has held that in the matter of unfair means, the power exercised by the Committee in quasi judicial manner. Persons should not be condemned and heard. The Apex Court held that:- We thus see that the Committee can only carry out its duties under R.1(1) by judging the materials, placed before it. It is true that there is no lis in the present case, in the sense that there are not two contesting parties before the Committee and the matter rests between the Committee and the examinee; at the same time considering that materials will have to be placed before the Committee to enable it to decide whether action should be taken under R. 1(1), it seems to us only fair that the examinee against whom the Committee is proceeding should also be heard. The effect of the decision of the Committee may in an extreme case blast the career of a young student for life and in any case will put a serious stigma on the examinee concerned which may damage him in later life. The nature of misconduct which the Committee has to find under R.1(1) in some cases is of a serious nature, for example, impersonation, commission of fraud, and perjury; and the Committee's decision in matters of such seriousness may even lead in some cases to the prosecution of the examinee in Courts. Considering therefore the serious effects following the decision of the Committee and the serious nature of the misconduct which may be found in some cases under R.1(1), it seems to us that the Committee must be held to act judicially in circumstances as these. Though therefore there is nothing express one way or the other in the Act or the Regulations casting a duty on the Committee to act judicially, the manner of the disposal, bases as it must be on materials placed before it, and the serious effects of the decision of the Committee on the examinee concerned, must lead to the conclusion that a duty is cast on the Committee to act judicially in this matter particularly as it has to decide objectively certain facts which may seriously affect the rights and careers of examinees, before it can take any action in the exercise of its power under R. 1(1). We are therefore of opinion that the Committee when it exercises its powers under R. 1(1) is acting quasi-judicially and the principles of natural justice which require that the other party, will apply to the proceedings before the Committee. This view was taken by the Calcutta High Court in Dipa Pal vs. University of Calcutta, AIR 1952 Cal. 594 and B.C. Das Gupta vs. Bijoyranjan Rakshit, AIR 1953 Cal. 212 in similar circumstances and is in our opinion correct. 5. In AIR 1991 SCW 879 , the Apex Court emphasized that fair procedure has to be adopted while dealing with the cases of unfair means. 6. In Rajesh Kumar and another vs. Institute of Engineers (India), AIR 1998 SC 5 , the Apex Court held that total similarity in the answers are not indicative of copying. The Apex Court held that:- 7. 6. In Rajesh Kumar and another vs. Institute of Engineers (India), AIR 1998 SC 5 , the Apex Court held that total similarity in the answers are not indicative of copying. The Apex Court held that:- 7. The resume of the afore detailed facts gives a clear insight to the minds of the members of the Institute who sat in judgment on the fate of the appellants. The doubts as expressed by the learned single Judge of the High Court in the Regular Second Appeal pertaining to the material available and the sitting pattern and also that the appellants had never sat in the subsequent examinations after the period of disqualification was over, were conveniently disregarded by the Institute. It would, in these circumstances, be not wrong to assume that had the members of the Institute gone into grips with that material, the result would have gone in favour of the appellants. Conveniently, other factors were brought in replacement to conquer the field inasmuch as the appellants were put to a cramming test, there and then in order to judge their capability of memory retention in a matter of minutes. All literate men have been students at a given point of time but all have not been crammers. These who cram do not achieve their goal by a single reading. It is a ceaseless effort for days and days till the desired result is achieved. Crammers inter se do not have any nexus with each other. The text of a book as the common source for cramming establishes no connection. That per se cannot be evidence of any conspiracy between the crammers to adopt unfair means in the examination unless there be material to show that there was copying of the answer books, descended from the answer book of one of the candidates, or directly from the book leading to the copying by others. The overall consideration of the Institute reflected that its members thought that they would be put to an embarrassment if the plea of the two appellants were to be accepted and therefore, thought of declining relief to the appellants. Such result cannot be permitted to follow from the deliberation of the Institute. In the interest of fair play this Court would thus step in to give a corrective dose. In this case mass-copying has not been found. Such result cannot be permitted to follow from the deliberation of the Institute. In the interest of fair play this Court would thus step in to give a corrective dose. In this case mass-copying has not been found. Only four persons have been found guilty of the copying, the entire examination of the centre has not been set aside by the Board. It is a case where principles of natural justice has not been observed by the Board. 7. The respondent Board is directed to hear the petitioner and take decision in accordance with law within three months from today as in this case mass-copying has not been found by the Board. The action of cancellation of the result of petitioner is quashed. 8. Writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid directions. C.C. as per rules.