Patna High Court
Madhusudan Paswan And Etc. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 25 February, 1988
Equivalent citations: AIR1989PAT106, 1989(37)BLJR140, 1989 BLJR 140, AIR 1989 PATNA 106, (1989) PAT LJR 157 1989 BLJR 140
ORDER Satya Brata Sanyal, J.
1. These two writ petitions are disposed of by common judgment since they raise a common question of law. Petitioners, in both the applications, seek quashing of an order passed by the Bihar Public Service Commission dated 22-9-1986 (annexure-5 in both the writ applications) setting aside their examination with respect to General Knowledge examination in the 31st Combined Competitive Examination. The impugned orders merely say that the petitioners' show cause with respect to the charges levelled found not to be satisfactory, a decision has been taken to cancel the relevant answer books.
2. Facts : The petitioners were candidates for 31st Combined Competitive Examination and they were issued Admit Cards on 1-2-1983. Their examination commenced on 12-2-1983. On 26-3-1985 the petitioners were asked to appear before the Interview Board on 24-4-1985 and pursuant thereto both the candidates faced the Interview Board. In August, 1985, a show cause notice was issued to both the' petitioners levelling the following charges.
In C.W.J.C. No. 2055 of 1987 the charges levelled were (Annexure-3) : the Head-Examiner complained; (a) The signature of the Invigilator on main answer book is different from the additional answer book, and (b) The written answers are with the assistance of outside Agency.
In C.WJ.C. No. 4825 of 1986: (a) The extra answer book-I does not contain the singnature of Invigilator, (b) In extra answer book-II the signature of the Invigilator is different from the signature of the Invigilator on the main answer book, and (c) the Invigilator's signature on IInd Answer book Does not tally with the main signature or signature of any other Invigilators (Annexure-3).
3. The petitioners filed their show cause which is Annexure-4 in both the writ petitions. In C.W.J.C. No. 2055 of 1987 the stand taken by the petitioner was that there were two Invigilators invigilating the process of the examination on each day of the Examination. The Commission had not disclosed before the ensuance of the Examination about the instruction issued by it that the signature on the main answer book and on the additional answer book should be of the same Invigilator. Thus, being not aware of the instruction the petitioners cannot be punished because the signature on the additional answer book of an Invigilator did not tally with the signature of the Invigilator on the principal answer book. However, the signature of the Invigilator on the second answer book should be compared with the signature of other Invigilators also. It was also submitted that at times Invigilator of other rooms also used to invigilate in absence of the Invigilators of the room where a particular candidate sits for examination. If, therefore, during such a period a candidate is supplied with an additional answer book the guilt lies on the part of Examination authority in supplying the additional answer book without obtaining the signature of the Invigilator on the principal answer book. As far as the second charge is concerned, it was submitted that had the petitioner taken the aid of the material coming from outside the Centre Superintendent, Invigilators and other Officers of the Commission deputed to conduct the aforesaid examination would have immediately taken action against him or would have submitted an adverse report immediately to the Commission. But, to the knowledge of the petitioner no such report was ever submitted. After two and half years of the examination when the petitioner successfully came out from the written test and after completion of the Interview such belated charges ought not to be levelled.
In C.W.J.C. No. 4825 of 1986 the stand of the petitioner in the show cause reply, it was submitted that it was not possible for a candidate to examine while in course of examination due to pressure and a different frame of mind while taking the examination to see for themselves whether the Invigilator has signed the answer book since it is their duty to, do so. So far as the second and third allegations that the second answer book carried a signature different from that of all the Invigilators as also the one spotted by the principal answer book, it is said that relievers keep on relieving regular Invigilators and if any answer book is given by the reliever then it is natural that the signatures of the two Invigilators do not appear in the said answer book. It has further been urged that at the time of collection of answer book often the Invigilators put their signature on additional answer books not earlier signed. It was also contended that the genuineness of the answer paper could be found, from the register which is maintained by the Commission showing supply of additional answer book to a particular candidate which will show genuineness or otherwise of the additional answer books. The petitioners after having filed the show cause were served almost a year after the impugned orders debarring them in the said examination which have been assailed in these two writ applications.
4. The Commission has filed counter-affidavit only in C.W.C.J. No. 4825 of 1986. The stand of the Commission is that after thorough consideration of the show cause, the examination in General knowledge has been invalidated: It has also been stated that unambiguous instruction (Annexure-A) titled as "Ummidwaron Ke Liye Samanya Anudesh" clearly instructed the candidates to ensure that the main answer book along with the additional answer book must bear the signature of the Invigilator and lack of signature may invalidate the answer book. It has also been stated that on perusal of the answer books of the writ petitioners an attempt to copy the Invigilator's signature was found on the additional answer book. It has also been stated that there could be no verification with the register for supply of additional answer books since they were not serially numbered. The respondents also produced the answer papers in this particular subject for perusal of the Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the order debarring the petitioners from the 31st Combined Competitive Examination visits them with civil consequences and they, in law, are etititled to speaking order showing real consideration of the show cause filed by them. They were further entitled to participate in the enquiry which was held behind their back without supply of the report of the head-examiner which is the foundation of the impugned action. If the Invigilators were examined in course of Enquiry, which, however, is not known to the petitioners, they were not allowed to cross-examine them. It is also not known whether the Invigilators, whose signature is purported upon the additional answer book, were ever asked whether the signature on the additional answer book is theirs or forged. The petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 2055 of 1987 asked the Court to look at the answer books and nobody can say that the answer books are not of one and the same candidate. They bear the same ink and the same hand-writing. Even the signature On the second answer book does not appear to be forged. It was, therefore, incumbent on the authorities to get the two signatures examined by a handwriting expert, there being close similarity of the singnatures. From the impugned orders, according of the learned courised for the petitioner, nothing is discernible since the order is not speaking one. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners were not aware of the instructions and, therefore, it cannot be used against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 4825 of 1986, further, contended that the two answer books beyond being by one and the same candidate, are running sentences from the principal to the first additional answer book. Therefore, it cannot be said that they could be substituted later on. The colour of the ink, the use of the pen also appear to be the same. He has further contended that the authorities, at least, could have ignored the marks obtained in the additional answer book which did not bear the signature of any Invigilator. Further, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the high marks obtained by the petitioners in other papers reveal that he could not have resorted to any unfairmeans in the General Knowledge paper.
6. I have perused the answer books. In C.W.J.C. No. 4825 of 1986 the two additional answer books are running answers from the previous books as also from the principal book to the first additional book. I am also satisfied that the answer books are in the handwriting of the same candidate. In C.W.J.C. No. 2055 of 1987, however, the second answer book is relating to an independent question but at the same time both the answer books are in the same handwriting and the additional answer book bears the signature of an Invigilator almost similar to the signature of an Invigilator on the principal book. There is a report of the head-examiner attached to both the answer books. In the case of C.W.J.C. No. 2055 of 1987 the head-examiner had given a note that the signature in the additional answer book differs with that of the main answer book. Secondly, "the candidate has used incriminating material smuggled from outside but it appears that the smuggled materials was sub-standard". In the answer book of the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 4825 of 1986 the head-examiner has further observed "the candidate appears to have link at more than one place in the process of securing higher marks through inadmissible activities" apart from the charges levelled against the petitioner already indicated earlier. I do not, however, propose to take upon myself the responsibility as to whether the charges levelled are good or bad. This is not the function of the Court. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel that the Court can satisfy itself by looking into the answer papers and justice be delivered to them by the said process is not permissible while exercising writ jurisdiction. As to what would have been the result of the said examination by the Court I need not express.
7. My attention has been drawn to the decision of a similar case rendered by a Division Bench in C.W.J.C. No. 5260 of 1986 dated 3-8-1987. In that case, no sooner the Hon'ble Judges turned to peruse the answer books the petitioner's counsel did not press the point urged initially but prayed that the decision arrived at by the Commission, should not debar his client from appearing in further examination. The said case, therefore, is of no guidance for arriving at a decision in the present two writ petitions.
8. It is not a case where the entire examination has been cancelled and re-examination is ordered without condemning any particular student. In such a case an order cannot be called to be quasi-judicial or any civil consequence ensuing therefrom as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhash Chandra Sinha, AIR 1970 SC 1259. It would be merely a course in the conduct of examination. The similar view has been expressed by a Bench of this court in the case of Uday Singh v. Magadh University, 1980 BBCJ (HC) 616 : (AIR 1981 NOC 18). However, in the instant case two students are being condemned with respect to their examination in General Knowledge paper. Therefore, the civil consequences ensue unlike the decisions cited above. In that view of the matter, "the rule requiring reasons to be given in support of an order is like the principle of audi alteram partem, a basic principle of natural justice which must inform every quasi-judicial process and this rule must be observed in its proper spirit and a mere pretence of compliance with it would not satisfy the requirement of law." (See Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 1785).
9. It is now well settled that a mere statement of careful consideration of the points and, therefore, the authorities have no reason to interfere have been held to be laconic as it refrains from disclosing the reasons in support of the order which a Court of law might have the opportunity to consider and/or give opportunity to an aggrieved person to demonstrate that the reasons pursuading the authority to reject his case, are erroneous. (See Travancore Rayons Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 862). Galore of decisions have veered round this principle in order to vindicate justice in a Welfare State.
10. No reason has been assigned in the two impugned orders for rejecting the show cause. The Court is in dark and not in a position to test as to whether considerations germane to the matter weighed with the authorities. I get no indication whether a quasi-judicial and objective mind has been brought to bear upon the facts of these two particular cases. Whether the signatures sporting in the additional answer book were of any Invigilator of the said examination centre and/or any reliever and were enquired from them, is not known. It is also not known whether it was (C.W.J.C. No. 2055 of 1987) at all enquired from the concerned Invigilator whose signature obtains in the main answer book with his purported signature on the additional answer book to determine whether the signature is actually his or forged. To the bare eyes they appeared to be same and similar. It is not known whether merely on the suspicion of the head-examiner the petitioners have suffered the distress. The authorities, in my opinion, were required to bear their objective mind to each one of the explanations given by the candidates in order to indicate and satisfy a court of law that their decision does not suffer from any vice and/or they have acted arbitrarily. The action initiated almost two and half years of the completion of the examination and five months after the interview speaks a lot against the authority. I cannot appreciate the allegation that the candidate appeared to have smuggled outside assistance in giving reply to their additional answer books and that too of sub-standard nature not brought to the notice of the candidate immediately after the examination was over and/or not prevented from doing so by host of Invigilators in the examination centre. The note of the head-examiner that the candidate appears to have link at more than one place in the process of securing higher marks, their undesirable activities are too vague and a case of pure inference when particularly the candidate has obtained very high marks in other papers. All this I have said in order to apprise the Commission to tighten up their own belts while holding examination and keep a regular register to show supply of additional answer books to the candidates in the examination hall. It should be the duty of the head -Invigilator to sign in advance all the additional answer books so that such defence that the additional answer books were given by, reliever or an Invigilator of any other room may be completely shut out. Further, mandatory instructions of the examination must be hung on the notice Board and/or on the reverse side of the admission card so that no candidate can ever complain that they were not supplied with the instructions in the examination hall and/or not aware of such instructions. There is no averment in the counter-affidavit that the instructions were hung on the notice Board for perusal of all intending examines.
11. Be that as it may, so far as these two writ petitions are concerned, they must succeed on the sole point that the impugned orders suffers from the vice of being non-speaking. Mere statement that the reasons have been carefully considered do not satisfy the requirement of law. It must be observed in its proper spirit. (See AIR 1971 SC 862, supra).
12. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. Annexure-5 in both the writ applications are quashed. The matter is sent back to the respondent-Bihar Public Service Commission to re-consider and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.