Madhya Pradesh High Court
Badri Vishal Tiwari And Anr. vs Secretary, Non-Collegiate Education ... on 2 May, 2003
Equivalent citations: AIR2004MP121, 2003(3)MPHT354, AIR 2004 MADHYA PRADESH 121, (2003) 3 MPHT 354
Author: Arun Mishra
Bench: Arun Mishra
ORDER Arun Mishra, J.
1. The relief prayed by the petitioners in the instant writ petition is that their result of mathematics subject was illegally cancelled by the respondents on the ground of mass copying in the examination held on 4-4-2000 of Class 8th.
2. Petitioners have come with the averment that there was no mass copying on the day on which examination of Mathematics was held and there was no report of mass copying of Class 8th students in the subject of Mathematics. Without there being any complaint to the said effect a decision was taken to cancel the examination and petitioners were granted supplementary. They have appeared and passed with first class marks in the supplementary examination. However, a blot has been cast on the performance of the petitioner by cancelling their examination of Mathematics papers on the ground of mass copying.
3. A return has been filed by the respondents and an application for taking documents on record has also been filed on 1-5-2000. In the return filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and it is contended that there was mass copying. Report of Superintendent was received regarding the same, on the basis of that examination has been cancelled. Report (R-1) dated 28-3-2000 has been relied upon. A committee was constituted and the answer-sheets were checked thoroughly. It was found that answers given by the students were similar. Committee took a decision of cancellation of Mathematics paper. Copy of the decision taken by the committee so constituted vide order dated 17-5-2000 is R-3. Thus, the action is proper calls for no interference.
4. An application has been filed by the respondents as respondents were directed to produce the documents to support the case of mass copying. Report (R-5), dated 28-3-2000, sent by Principal has been filed. Same does not concern with the Mathematics subject. Decision (R-6) of the committee constituted to examine unfair means has been filed again. Same is R-3 on record, which was filed earlier. It appears that on the basis of report of the Center Superintendent a decision was taken to cancel the examination. Another letter (R-7), dated 31-3-2000 a communication sent by District Education Officer, Gwalior, to District Education Officer, Rewa has also been placed on record, in which he has mentioned that there was mass copying only on 28-3-2000 and he had not suggested to cancel an examination of Mathematics which was held on 4-4-2000. However, if decision has been taken by the committee to cancel the examination that has to be based on some other documents.
5. Shri L.S. Baghel, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has urged that there was no copying much less mass copying on the date on which the examination of Mathematics was held on 4-4-2000. There is no material to support the case of mass copying on 4-4-2000. Report of valuer regarding similarity of the mark-sheet has also not been filed in spite of the direction made by this Court and letter (R-7) of District Education Officer, Gwalior makes the position clear that he had not recommended to cancel the examination of Mathematics and no other documents has been filed to substantiate the case of mass copying.
6. Shri Shashank Shekhar, learned G.A. appearing with District Education Officer submits that whatever material was available has been produced. There is nothing on record filed by the respondents to support that there was similarity in the answers of Mathematics paper. Report of valuer to that effect has not been filed and it is submitted that whatever material was available has been filed. Document (R-3) has been filed, which on close scrutiny reveals that as a matter of fact a decision was taken by the Committee to cancel the examination on the basis of report of Center Superintendent, not on the basis of recommendation made by the valuer on the ground of similarity in the answers. Thus, the stand taken in the return is not substantiated by the document (R-3) filed by the respondents. On specific query being made, it is submitted that there is no other record except R-3 of valuation. Letter (R-7) of District Education Officer, Gwalior, dated 31-3-2000 (who was posted at Rewa at relevant time) to District Education Officer, Rewa makes it clear that no direction was issued, not to evaluate the answer-sheets of Mathematics subject and recommendation was not made by the said Shri P.N. Tripathi to cancel the examination held on 4-4-2000/-. There was no report sent by the Principal or concerning school also about unfair means on 4-4-2000. Thus, it is clear that the respondents have not been able to substantiate the case of mass copying on 4-4-2000 by producing any material.
7. Thus, the action of cancelling the examination is unsustainable. However, as the petitioners were asked to appear in the supplementary and they have secured first class marks and most of the students have passed with first division marks. I make no direction to declare the result afresh as petitioners have chosen to go by performance of the supplementary examination. Costs of petition of Rs. 5,000/- to be borne by the respondents payable to the petitioners.