Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Some more facts which will have to be noticed before we consider the contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellants are that all these candidates are supposed to have had a very good academic career and therefore, their failure in the subjects concerned came as a surprise to them and that is the reason they asked for revaluation of the answers in question. About the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 886 of 1985 who applied for revaluation, it is stated that he was a First Class student throughout and there was absolutely no reason for his failure in Sanskrit paper which is his Second Language. He had passed Sanskrit Examination conducted by Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bangalore, and his case is that he could never fail in Sanskrit with that proficiency in Sanskrit language. In so far as the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 843 of 1985 is concerned, it is stated that she is also a First Class student throughout. But, she had secured only 23 marks in Mathematics and after re-valuation she was awarded 35 marks. She has passed M.B.B.S. Examination and she is now a house surgeon and is also married. Appellant in Writ Appeal No. 1106 of 1985 had also failed in Sanskrit having secured only 26 marks. But, after revaluation she obtained 32 marks. In the very same examinations she secured 74 marks in Chemistry and 85 marks in Mathematics. She withdrew from the examination in Chemistry and appeared again in that subject and she got 96 marks in that subject. She is an engineering student and she was not allowed to appear for the examination because of the pendency of the Writ Petition. Likewise the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 1007 of 1985 was not permitted to take the final examination in Commerce because of the pendency of the Writ Petition, The other appellants had not obtained passing marks in the subjects in question, but, after re-valuation they were declared as passed by virtue of the additional marks given to them, as some of the answers remained unvalued originally as alleged by them.

13. He invited our attention to the observation made by the learned Judge in para 10(10A) of the impugned order and submitted that that observation was ambivalent and not determinative; that since Criminal prosecution in respect of those appellants was under contemplation, the learned Judge should have avoided the inspection of the answer scripts for recording his findings against them: that we also should not fall into the same error by looking into the answer scripts since the enquiry that was contemplated was a quasi judicial enquiry and, if we come to the conclusion that the quasi judicial enquiry was conducted by the authorities without complying with the requirements of the principles of natural justice, any order made by the authorities pursuant to that enquiry which is violative of the principles of natural justice is not enforceable in the eye of law and is void; that unfortunately, the learned Judge at the time of dispoing of the Writ Petitions, did not have the benefit of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Olga Tellis case'; that the principles of natural justice had been given a very liberal and extended meaning in Olga Tellis and therefore, the learned Judge was in relying on a passage from the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.L. KAPOOR v. JAGMOHAN that the principle in Kapoor's case was wrongly applied by the learned Judge and, if his attention had been drawn to the decision in Olga Tellis, the learned Judge would have desisted from looking into the records and based his conclusions in the light of the impressions gathered by him from the answer scripts; that a void decision made by the authority could not have been converted into a valid one by looking into the answer scripts and, therefore, we should desist from going through the answer scripts and should decide the appeals purely on the merits of the legal principles that are applicable to the facts of the case; that the scrutiny of the answer scripts would be an exercise in futility, since even after the perusal of the answer scripts nothing more than what had been summarised by the learned Judge in para 10A of his order would be found; that it would not be possible to hold that any particular student, not even one, was guilty of the alleged malpractice of inserting answers in the respective answer books fraudulently or deliberately after the declaration of the results and there is no direct evidence of any kind to connect the students with the alleged malpractice allegedly committed by them in the answer scripts; that no evidence was presented against them from which such an inference could be possible; that there is only circumstancial evidence, the various links in the evidence have to be established in such a way as to rule out the reasonable likelihood of innocence of the accused and that could be done only by a fresh enquiry by giving an opportunity to the appellants to state their case in respect of each specific allegation against them by confronting them with the answer scripts produced by the authorities, by seeking their explanation to the specific answer said to have been interpolated or introduced subsequently under the guise of re-valuation of the answers given by them. For these reasons, the learned Counsel very strongly contended that we should desist from looking into the answer scripts and should not commit the same mistake made by the learned judge while giving his findings against the appellants. His other submission in support of his objections against any such scrutiny of the answer scripts is that in view of the pending criminal prosecution any observation made by this Court on the basis of such scrutiny of the answer scripts would have adverse consequences in the criminal cases pending against the appellants and would seriously jeopardise their defence in the pending criminal actions. He further contended that the learned Judge ought to have kept in view the decision of the Supreme Court in SEGARA SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB AIR 1984 SC 1499 and in view of the admitted fact that out of 141 students who were involved in the re-valuation process, over 100 students got the benefit of such re-valuation but only 41 students including the appellants were found guilty of misconduct alleged against them. Out of 41 candidates whose marks cards have been withdrawn, only the appellants have been proceeded against for the criminal conspiracy and other offences under the penal code. He submitted that in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Segara Singh's case, the appellants have been discriminated by the authorities, as on the same set of facts no action had been taken against the other students numbering over 100. It was nextly contended that the initial burden of showing discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution was on the appellants. But, once it is established before this Court that over 100 students had been exonerated, the burden is shifted to the State and in the absence of any return by the authorities rebutting this contention, this Court should proceed on the basis that there is an obvious discrimination on the face of the record.

14. On facts, he submitted that the learned Judge was wrong in coming to the conclusion that the rules relating to the conduct of the Pre-University examinations framed by the State Government did not provide for re-valuation of the answer scripts. He invited our attention to Rules 37 and 38 of the Rules published by the State Government. These rules are not statutory rules, but they are framed by the State Government for regulating the conduct of the Pre University Examinations. Rule 37 of the Rules reads as under:

Rule 38(b) is not very material for the purpose of these appeals.

15. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the applications made by the appellants were not for re-totalling of the marks, but for valuation of some of the answers on the ground that those answers written by them were not valued by the examiner and, therefore, they were entitled to additional marks to those answers after those answers were valued subsequently. But, the learned Judge wrongly took the view that there was no provision at all for re-valuation of the answer scripts and, therefore, the application itself for such re-valuation was lacking in bona fides and should not have been entertained. The appellants case is that they had not asked for re-valuation, but for valuation of the answers which were not valued earlier by the examiners and that could be done by the authorities in terms of the general powers and functions of the Board under the Government Order dated 3-12-1970. By that Government Order, the Board was given the powers to appoint examiners and supervisors and fix their remuneration. It was also given the powers generally to do all such other acts whether incidental to the powers aforesaid or not as may be necessary or desirable.