Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madhya Pradesh Board Of Secondary ... vs Ku. Shashi Tomer And Ors. on 12 December, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2004(1)MPHT498
ORDER S. Samvatsar, J.
1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed by the respondents against the order passed in Writ Petition No. 2348 of 2003 passed by Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court on 23-9-2003 whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the petition filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 27 and directed the appellant, Board, to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before cancelling their results.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the petition arc that respondent Nos. 1 to 27 are regular students from D. A. V. Higher Secondary School, Bhind and Indira Gandhi Memorial High School, Bhind. All these petitioners appeared in the examination of higher secondary from examination centre No. 31005. Nearly 400 students appeared in the examination from the aforesaid centre. Out of these students the result of 119 students were cancelled on the ground that their answers were found identically the same. Even the mistakes appeared in the answer papers were also the same in all the papers answered by these students. Thus, it was found that all these students were indulged in mass-copying and malpractice. Hence, their results were cancelled.
3. The contention of the students is that the examination was conducted under strict security. There is no report about the mass-copying from the Invigilators or any other officer from the Centre. Hence, the action against the students is illegal and arbitrary. It is further contended that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the students before cancelling their examination. On these grounds the students filed a common petition before this Court which was allowed by the impugned order.
4. The Hon'blc Single Judge has set aside the order of cancellation of results only on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the students before cancelling their results. As regards the merits of the case the learned Single Judge has directed that the Board shall decide the matter afresh after hearing the students whose results arc cancelled. Thus, the only question before this Court is whether the learned Single Judge was right in setting aside the order of cancelling the result only on the ground that opportunity was not afforded to the students.
5. The contention of the appellant-Board before this Court is that the order setting aside the decision of cancelling examination on a ground that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the students is illegal and can not be sustained. For this purpose Smt. June Choudhary, learned Counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, M.P. v. Ahhilash Shiksha Prasar Samiti and Ors. [1997 (2) JLJ 113]. In that case the examination of the students were cancelled on the report of Naib Tehsildar to the effect that there was mass copying in the examination. The petition filed by the students was allowed by this Court. The Apex Court has held :--
"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 can not 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 those 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 in the examination and they may have to go through the drill once again. We also think that those incharge of the examination 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."
The Apex Court has thus deprecated practice of interfering in the affairs of the Board in the matter of examinations.
6. Counsel for the petitioner further relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Chairman, J & K State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik and Ors., (2000) 3 SCC 59, in which the Apex Court has held that Board being an expert body comprising persons experienced in the field of education and being concerned with maintaining high standard of education and proper conduct of examinations, Court should not interfere with decisions, or actions of the Board or its authorities unless there is error in compliance with the rules, regulations or notifications and manifest injustice perpetrated on the candidates. This case was also a case of mass copying and the results of the students were cancelled without affording them any opportunity of hearing and the Apex Court refused to interfere in the decision of the Board and dismissed the petition.
7. Another case cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant is the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education and Ors., (2003) 8 SCC 311. In that case specific question was raised whether in a case of mass copying principles of audi alteram partem will be applicable and the Apex Court has held that in case of mass copying it is not possible to follow principles of natural justice and denial of opportunity of hearing is fully justified.
8. Learned Counsel for the respondents, Shri H.D. Gupta, relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Shashikala Singh v. State of M.P. and Ors. [2003 (3) MPLJ 238] wherein the learned Single Judge has held that when only four persons have been found guilty of copying, the Board was not right in cancelling the examination of entire centre and it is further held that it was necessary for the Board to afford an opportunity of hearing to the students. But, the said case is not applicable in the present case, because it was held not to be a case that case of mass copying has not been found, moreover, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, M.P. v. Abhilash Shiksha Prasar Samiti and Ors. (supra) and Ram Preeti Yadav (supra), were not brought to the notice of the Court.
9. Another judgment relied on by Counsel for the respondents is in the case of Badri Vishal Tiwari and Anr. v. Secretary, Non-collegiate Education M.P., Bhopal and Ors., [2003(3) M.P.II.T. 354 = 2003 (4) MPU-Notc 2], wherein the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court has held that the case of mass copying is not made out and hence set aside the order of cancellation of examination. This judgment also do not support the case of the respondents as it does not deal with the question involved in the present appeal is whether it is necessary to afford an opportunity of hearing to the students before cancelling their results.
10. Shri H.D. Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that if it was found that the students were indulged in mass copying then the results of entire centre should have been cancelled by the Board instead of picking only 119 students. But, this argument is not well founded. As per the case of the Board the answer books of 1 \ 9 students were found identical, hence the results of those students who were not found to be indulged in mass copying and who has. not adopted any malpractices in the examination their examination can not be cancelled and those innocent students can not be made to suffer in view of the fact that there is no material against them of indulging in mass copying. The question of pick and choose would have been arisen if any of the students whose answer book had been found identical was left out of the order of cancellation. This is not the case in the present appeal. Thus, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, M.P. (supra) and Ram Preeti Yadav (supra) the learned Single Judge has erred in interfering in the decision of the Board of cancelling the examination.
11. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The impugned order setting aside the Board's order of cancellation of the result of the students is set aside and the petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed with no order as to costs.