Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sarbjeet Singh And Ors. vs Director, Technical Education And ... on 23 May, 1997
Equivalent citations: AIR1998P&H138, AIR 1998 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 138, (1997) 3 SCT 482 (1997) 5 SERVLR 153, (1997) 5 SERVLR 153
ORDER Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. The petitioners had joined a Two years' Course in the subject of Electronics at the Industrial Training Institute, Bassi Pathana. The final examination was held in the year 1995. The result of this examination was declared on November 3, 1995. The petitioners had passed the Course. A copy of the provisional certificate issued to one of the petitioners on November 21, 1995 has been produced as Annexure-P. 1 with the writ petition. In December 1995, the petitioners received letters indicating that their result had been cancelled and that they could appear in the supplementary examination which was to be held in January 1996. According to the revised result, the petitioners were required to re-appear in the subject of Workshop Science. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners submitted a representation. When nothing was done, they filed the present writ petition with the prayer that the order dated December 5, 1995 by which the result was cancelled, by quashed.
2. A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents controverting the claim made by the petitioners. Along with the written statement, a copy of the report dated July 20, 1995 submitted by the Deputy Director (Administration) and the subsequent action thereon has been produced as Annexure-R. 3. A perusal of this report indicates that the Deputy Director had visited the Centre of Examination on July 20, 1995. He had found that the students were indulging in wholesale copying. It was also found that even the staff posted to supervise the examination was not checking the students from adopting unfair means. Consequently, it was recommended that the result of the examination should be cancelled and that disciplinary action should be taken against the nine defaulting members of the supervisory staff. This report of the Deputy Director was examined at different levels and was approved by the Director on July 21, 1995. In spite of that, the result was somehow declared. On detection of the mistake, the orders f6r cancellation of the result were issued. In this situation, the respondents claim that no ground for interference with the impugned order is made out.
3. Counsel for the parties have been heard. Even the original file has been produced by the counsel for the respondents. A perusal of the file indicates that the Additional Director had issued instructions to the Deputy Director to conduct an inspection. It was in pursuance of these directions that the Deputy Director had visited the Centre on July 20, 1995 and found that the students had papers, books, note-books in their possession. These were taken into possession. This was the position in all the rooms at the Centre. Accordingly, after inspection, the Deputy Director had observed that all the 187 students who were taking the examination, had indulged in mass-scale adoption of unfair means. Even the supervisory staff was colluding with them. Resultantly, he had suggested that the examination should be cancelled, and that disciplinary action should be taken against the defaulting members of the supervisory staff. This proposal was approved by the Head of the Department viz., the Director, Technical Education and Industrial Training. In the circumstances of the case, the action was absolutely just and fair.
4. On behalf of the petitioners, it has been submitted that no show cause notice was given to any one of the candidates. It is undoubtedly so. The report submitted by the Deputy Director clearly shows that the sanctity of the examination had been violated. Once that had happened, the respondents were entitled to cancel the entire examination. In such a situation, it was not necessary to issue show cause notices to the individual candidates. The respondents were not making allegations against individual candidates. Thus, it was not necessary to give notices to the individuals. Accordingly, no infirmity can be found in the action of the respondents on the ground that individual notices were not given.
5. It was also contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the Director had no jurisdiction to cancel the examination. In support of this claim, reliance was placed on Clause 21 (v) from the Training Manual for Industrial Training Institutes and Centres, Government of India, Ministry of Labour, Directorate General of Employment and Training, New Delhi.
6. Firstly, it has not been shown that this Training Manual issued by the Government of India governs the conduct of examinations by the Industrial Training Institutes. Secondly, even a perusal of the opening part of the Manual shows that Councils have been constituted for different States separately. Each Council is entitled to conduct the examination and constitute examination committees. It has been pointed out by the counsel for the respondents that the Director, Technical Education has been authorised by the State Council to conduct examinations and to take appropriate action. This is precisely what appears to have been happened in the present case.
7. The evil of unfair means during examinations has become rampant. In a case where the adoption of unfair means is clearly established, the technicality, even if any, should not persuade the writ court to interfere. Students who adopt unfair means in examinations should have no sympathy. Consequently, even if it is assumed that there was some technical lacuna, though there is none in the present case, the court would have been reluctant to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution.
8. No other point has been urged.
9. There is no merit in this writ petition. It is, consequently, dismissed. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioners are students, there will be no order as to costs.