Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1405 (PNJ)

Shiv Kumar v. U. O. I.

2010-04-07

PERMOD KOHLI

body2010
Judgment Permod Kohli, J. 1. Petitioners applied for Secondary School examination, which was to be conducted by the respondent No. 2 (University) in the month of April, 2009 from 09.04.2009 to 29.04.2009. They were issued roll numbers and date sheets. The Centre was also alloted to the petitioners at Dayanand Model School, Sanyas Ashram, Fatehabad, Haryana. Petitioners appeared in the said examination, however, result was withheld on the ground of mass copying in social science in the centre as is evident from Annexure P-23, which is an intimation down loaded by the petitioners from the website. After issuing show cause notice to the petitioners, the University took a decision to cancel the entire examination and candidates have been debarred from appearing in any examination upto October and November, 2009. Aggrieved of the respondents action, the petitioners have filed this petition seeking setting aside of the order and action of the respondents. They further prayed for issuing a direction to the respondents to declare the result of the petitioners of the Secondary School Examination, held in April, 2009. 2. On being put to notice, the respondent-University has filed its disclaimer. It is alleged that during the examination of the subject of Social Science, held on April 2009 in the examination centre at Dayanand Model School, Sanyas Ashram, Fatehabad, the examinees have committed mass copies, which was detected by the examiner. It is stated that Expert Committee of three experts was constituted. The Committee has come to the conclusion that answers to 8 questions of all the three sets (A, B and C) are tallying and matching with each other of all the students, who appeared from this Centre. The Committee has also reported that mass copying was result of either by supplying the slips (material) or all the answers have been dictated by Invigilators. On this basis, show cause notice was issued to the students. The U.F.M. Committee after considering the entire material imposed the penalty of cancellation of entire current examination and also debarred the students from appearing in another examination for six months, which is to be held in October/April, 2009. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that show cause notice, issued to the petitioners, was served after the date fixed for appearance. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that show cause notice, issued to the petitioners, was served after the date fixed for appearance. According to the averment made in Para 10, the petitioners were to make a representation/written statement upto 15th July, 2009, however, this notice was received on 17th July, 2009 and thus, they could not file the reply. It accordingly argued that there has been violation of principles of natural justice. 4. From the reply filed by the respondents, it appears that there has been a mass copy. The report of the Expert Committee supports the contention of the petitioners. Even if petitioners plea regarding the show cause notice; having been received beyond the date fixed for filing the written statement is accepted no relief can be granted to the petitioners merely on account of non observance of principles of natural justice. In case of mass copying where the candidate(s) responsible for the misconduct cannot be identified the issuance of show cause notice may not be needed. The object and purport of the show cause notice is to enable the concerned to explain his/her position. Where there are allegations of mass copying, it may be difficult for the authorities to fix the responsibility upon any particular candidate or person and the observance of principles of natural justice m be futile exercise. In Controller of Examinations v. G.S. Sunder and Another, 1992(2) G.L.H. 140 (SC), Honble Supreme Court made following observations :- "One thing must put beyond doubt, in matters of enforcement of discipline this Court must be very slow in interference. After all, the authorities in charge of education whose duty is to conduct examination fairly and properly know best how to deal with situations of this character. One cannot import fine principles of law and weigh the same in golden scales. In the present system of education, the system of examinations is the best suited to assess the progress of the student so long as they are fairly conducted. Interference by court in every case may lead to unhappy results making the system of examination a farce. For instance, we cannot but strongly condemn copying in the examination which has grown into canker of mass copying. Such unhealthy practices which are like poisonous weeds in the field of education must be rooted out in order that the innocent and the intelligent students are not affected. For instance, we cannot but strongly condemn copying in the examination which has grown into canker of mass copying. Such unhealthy practices which are like poisonous weeds in the field of education must be rooted out in order that the innocent and the intelligent students are not affected. We feel that : "The hour has come when we must clear the educational fields from poison and from fear, We muse remould our standards - build them higher. And clear the air as though by cleansing fire Weed out the damning traitors to education, Restore her to her ancient place of awe". Similarly, in case Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal M.P. v. Abhilash Shiksha Prasar Samiti, 1998(9) S.C.T. 236, it was held as under :- "We feel a little distressed that in matter like this the High Court should have interfered with the decision taken by the Board. The contention was that the examination was cancelled on the report of a Naib Tehsildar dated 18-3-1996 who was not authorised by the Board to visit the examination centre. It is irrelevant whether the Naib Tehsildar was authorised by the Board to visit the centre or not but what is of importance is the fact that he did visit the centre and found the students copying even before the question papers were distributed. This clearly implies that the students were aware of the questions indicative of the leakage of the question paper. The Naib Tehsildar even complained that the teachers did not object to the students entering the examination hall with books and copying material. That would mean that either they were hand in glove with the students or, they were, for some reason not able to stop the students from copying. This is also evident from the report of the Superintendent of the Centre. The Naib Tehsildar states that neither the Superintendent of the Centre nor the invigilators were prepared to interfere and were not able to explain how the students could enter the hall with books, etc., and copy therefrom with impunity. The Superintendent of the Centre states that he had requested the Naib Tehsildar to stay for three hours but the Naib Tehsildar declined to stay. The report of the valuers at page 81 also goes to show that there was mass copying. The High Court brushed it aside as subsequent material. The Superintendent of the Centre states that he had requested the Naib Tehsildar to stay for three hours but the Naib Tehsildar declined to stay. The report of the valuers at page 81 also goes to show that there was mass copying. The High Court brushed it aside as subsequent material. But it supports the Boards decision and it was improper in a sensitive matter like this to ignore it on such a technical ground. In the face of this material, we do not see any justification in the High Court having interfered with the decision taken by the Board to treat the examination as cancelled. It is unfortunate that the student community resorts to such methods to succeed in examinations and then some of them come forward to contend that innocent students become victims of such misbehaviour of their companions. That cannot be helped. In such a situation the Board is left with no alternative but to cancel the examination. It is extremely difficult for the Board to identify the innocent students from these indulging in malpractices. One may feel sorry for the innocent students but one has to appreciate the situation in which the Board was placed and the alternatives that were available to it so far as this examination was concerned. It had no alternative but to cancel the results and we think, in the circumstances, they were justified in doing so. This should serve as a lesson to the students that such malpractices will not help them succeed at the examination and they may have to go through the drill once again. We also think that those in charge of the examinations should also take action against their Supervisors/Invigilators, etc., who either permit such activity or become silent spectators thereto. If they feel insecure because of the strong-arm tactics of those who indulge in malpractices, the remedy is to secure the services of the Uniformed Personnel, if need be, and ensure that students do not indulge in such malpractices". In view of the categorical stand of the respondents and the ratio of the aforesaid judgments, no interference is warranted by this Court particularly when the petitioners have already suffered the punishment regarding cancellation of their examination and now they are entitled to re-appear in the examination. Petition dismissed.