Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 143 (ORI)

Ramani Ranjan Das v. Controller of Examinations

2003-02-19

L.MOHAPATRA, P.K.MOHANTY

body2003
JUDGMENT P. K. MOHANTY, J. — The petitioners student of +2 Science Wing of H.N.S. Mahavidyalaya formerly known as Chandol College, have filed this writ application seeking for a direction to opp.party No.1, the Council of Higher Secondary Education to evaluate and award marks in Physics Paper-II of Annual Higher Secondary Examination, 2002. 2. The brief facts of the petitioners case is that 56 students had appeared at the +2 Science Annual Higher Secondary Examination, 2002 conducted by the Council of Higher Secondary Education (hereinafter called ‘the Council’) from Chandol Col¬lege, Chandol Centre. On publication of the results the petition¬ers to their surprise found 00 mark was awarded to the examinees in Physics Paper-II. It is alleged that the Physics Paper-II was conducted in the centre on 11.3.2002 in the first sitting. The central squad of the Council, supervised the centre, thoroughly checked the examinees, but could detect only 12 of them possess¬ing incriminating materials and, therefore, those students were booked under mal practice. The answer scripts of such 12 exami¬nees were sent to the Controller of Examinations, but the answer scripts in respect of rest of the examines were sent for evalua¬tion to the Evaluation Zone. During the course of supervision by the Central squad, the Kendrapara College squad also reached the College and the members of that squad remained in the College till the examination was over. They have expressed satisfaction over the smooth conduct of examination. The Principal requested the Controller of Examinations to reconsider the results, since there was no indiscipline or outside interference during there examination. The contention is raised that since only 12 candi¬dates were booked for mal practice, being in possession of some incriminating materials detected by the Central squad, the award of 00 marks and/or cancelling the examination in respect of others is illegal and without jurisdiction. 3. The contention is raised that since only 12 candi¬dates were booked for mal practice, being in possession of some incriminating materials detected by the Central squad, the award of 00 marks and/or cancelling the examination in respect of others is illegal and without jurisdiction. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opp.party No.1 being sworn to by the Deputy Controller of examinations, the averments and the allegations made in the writ petition have been disputed, it is the specific stand of the Council that the exami¬nation in Physics Paper-II was conducted in the first sitting, of 11.3.2002 and 12 candidates were booked under mal practice at the first stage when the Flying Squad deputed by the Council entered the Examination Hall and made a sample check, but during the presence of the Squad for about one hour, it was observed that rampant mal practice as going on with the active help of Invigil¬lators and the situation was so chaotic that further detection of individual mal practice as impossible. The visit of the second squad during the examination in Physics Paper-II on 11.3.2002 has been denied. It is asserted that Sri B.K. Mohapatra, Superintend¬ent of the Examination was absent on 11.3.2002 by deputing one A.K. Bal, Lecturer in English to remain in-charge, Receipt of any representation from the Principal as in Annexure-3 has been denied inasmuch as it is stated that the representation appears to be a manufactured one. The examination in Physics Paper-II held on 11.3.2002 in the first sitting having not been conducted as per the norms and Rules of the Council and the whole atmos¬phere being not conducive to hold a free and fair examination on the basis of the report of the Flying Squad the Examination Committee of the Council took a decision to cancel the examina¬tion. It is stated that on cancellation of examination in any sitting the results of the candidates in that paper are taken to be 00 and the benefit of Hard Case Rule and re-examination facil¬ity are not extended to such examinees. 4. One Binaya Kumar Mohapatra (Opp.Party No.2) working as the Principal of the concerned College has filed an affidavit. The deponent has averred at paragraph-7 of the counter affidavit that the recovery of incriminating materials from 12 examinees by the Squad deputed by the Council is a matter of record. 4. One Binaya Kumar Mohapatra (Opp.Party No.2) working as the Principal of the concerned College has filed an affidavit. The deponent has averred at paragraph-7 of the counter affidavit that the recovery of incriminating materials from 12 examinees by the Squad deputed by the Council is a matter of record. However, the visit of the second squad from the nodal Centre namely Ken¬drapara College has been denied. The Principal stated that after receipt of the examination results he addressed a letter dated 4.5.2002 to the opp.party No.1 indicating therein that there was no disturbance during the examination in Physics Paper-II and requesting the Controller to reconsider the matter since some innocent students who have no contribution, have unnecessarily become victims inasmuch as the image of the College as a whole is at stake. According to the deponent the Council was free to take action against the erring examinees from whom incriminating materials were recovered, but not all. In paragraph-14 of the counter affidavit, the Principal states that on the next day of the examination i.e. 12/13.3.2002 on behalf of the Principal, the in-charge Superintendent dispatched the answer scripts of 12 examinees booked in mal practice in a separate packet addressed to the Controller in accordance with the Rules. 5. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, Sri S.D. Das, learned counsel for the Council has produced the original report of the Flying Squad and other papers relating to cancellation of examination for perusal of this Court. The report reveals that the general condition in and around the examination centre was disturbing. When the Flying Squad deputed by the Council reached the collage centre, the gate was opened after sometime and the Squad noticed that outsiders were present inside the campus, candidates were throwing out incriminating materials through the windows. The Squad detected 12 specific cases on a test check. The candidates did not pay any heed to the presence of the Squad. The Invegillators were abetters to the mass mal practice. The Centre Superintendent was absent and Sri A.K. Baral, Lecturer in English was in-charge of the Centre Superitendent. The Centre Superintendent in-charge expressed his inability to tackle the situation. Almost all candidates were adopting mal practice infringing the examination norms. Inside the examination hall from each candidates a bunch of incriminating materials were collected from the outside as well as from inside. The Centre Superintendent in-charge expressed his inability to tackle the situation. Almost all candidates were adopting mal practice infringing the examination norms. Inside the examination hall from each candidates a bunch of incriminating materials were collected from the outside as well as from inside. According to the report, the examination was not conducted according to the Rules and norms prescribed by the Council and the atmosphere inside the examination hall was not congenial for a smooth, free and fair examination and as such, the Flying Squad recommended for cancellation of the examination in Physics Paper-II held on 11.3.2002 in the first sitting. The report in the format, which accompanied the special report has been signed by Sri Akhaya Kumar Bal, who was Superintendent In-charge of the Examination Centre. 6. Law is fairly well settled that the examination body like the Council of Higher Secondary Education is responsible for prescribing courses of studies, conduct of examination, publication of results thereof and to maintain the standard of examination. Conduct of any examination is with a view to assess the knowledge and merit of a person by proper appraisal and evaluation of one’s performance in the examination through expe¬rienced and competent examiners of the subject. If that is the purpose of an examination, there cannot be any manner of doubt that such examination has to be free and fair, in accordance with the rules, regulation and norms prescribed by such examining bodies and it has to be without any external aid from any source. Thus, if the examining authorities came to know from the report that in any particular centre, the examination has not been conducted as per the rules and all or a vast majority of the examinees have resorted to mal practice in receiving assistance or aid from external sources and take a decision basing on sufficient materials, to cancel such examination in order to maintain sanctity and standard of the examination, their decision cannot be faulted. The Courts should not ordinarily interfere in such academic matters, since academic bodies are responsible for maintaining sanctity and standard of examination and education. The Courts should not ordinarily interfere in such academic matters, since academic bodies are responsible for maintaining sanctity and standard of examination and education. The decision on such academic matters should be left to the wisdom of such academic bodies and their appreciation of problem has to be respected unless, of course such decision is based on insufficient or no material or in violation of any provision of law or without following the rules of natural justice. It is equally well-settled that in a case of mass mal practice adopted by the examinees, the authorities are not required to ask each one of the examinees to put forth their case before taking a drastic decision to cancel the examination as a whole body of them had resorted to external aid and the examination was con¬ducted in violation of the rules. 7. In such view of the matter, if on the basis of the report of the special squad, that all or a vast majority of the students appearing in +2 Science Examination in Physics Paper-II Ist Sitting conducted in Chandol College, had resorted to mass mal practice and the examination centre was in a disturbed or chaotic condition, where it was impossible to conduct a free and fair examination and on appreciation of the matter, the Council has taken a conscious decision to cancel the examination, such decision of the Council cannot be held to be illegal or without authority. It is a common experience that there has been an increasing tendency growing with the students for adopting mal practice in the examinations. The poor state like Orissa can ill afford to produce sub-standard educated youth by allowing or condoning such unfair means at the examination centers. It is high time that the examining bodies like the Board, the Council or the Universities to take adequate and effective steps in curbing mal practice at different examination centers. However, this should not be construed as a passport for any decision to cancel any examination without proper examination and scrutinisa¬tion of the reports in its proper perspective, involving career of students. 8. However, this should not be construed as a passport for any decision to cancel any examination without proper examination and scrutinisa¬tion of the reports in its proper perspective, involving career of students. 8. In such view of the matter, and in view of the clear and unambiguous report of the Flying Squad consisting of four teachers of different colleges duly signed by the Superintendent in-charge of the Centre that the examination in the centre was not conducted in accordance with the norms prescribed by the Council and that all the examinees were possessed with incrimi¬nating materials and adopting mal practice during the examina¬tion, the decision of the Council to annul such examination cannot be faulted. 9. In the result, we find no merit in the writ applica¬tion, which is accordingly dismissed. But, in the circumstances of the case, since the applicants are students, we pass no order as to costs. L. MOHAPATRA, J. I agree. Petition dismissed.