Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

We shall first take up for consideration the contention that clause (3) of Regulation 104 is ultra vires the regulation-making powers of the Board. The point urged by the petitioners before the High Court was that the prohibition against the inspection or disclosure of the answer papers and other documents and the declaration made in the impugned clause that they are "treated by the Divisional Board as confidential documents" do not serve any of the purposes of the Act and hence these provisions are ultra vires. The High Court was of the view that the said contention of the petitioners had to be examined against the back-drop of the fact disclosed by some of the records produced before it that in the past there had been a few instances where some students possessing inferior merits had succeeded in passing off the answer papers of other brilliant students as their own by tampering with seat numbers or otherwise and the verification process contemplated under Regulation 104 had failed to detect the mischief. In our opinion, this approach made by the High Court was not correct or proper because the question whether a particular piece of delegated legislation-whether a rule or regulation or other type of statutory instrument-is in excess of the power of subordinate legislation conferred on the delegate has to be determined with reference only to the specific provisions contained in the relevant statute conferring the power to make the rule, regulation, etc. and also the object and purpose of the Act as can be gathered from the various provisions of the enactment. It would be wholly wrong for the court to substitute its own opinion for that of the legislature or its delegate as to what principle or policy would best serve the objects and purposes of the Act and to sit in judgment over the wisdom and effectiveness or otherwise of the policy laid down by the regulation-making body and declare a regulation to be ultra vires merely on the ground that, in the view of the Court, the impugned provisions will not help to serve the object and purpose of the Act. So long as the body entrusted with the task of framing the rules or regulations acts within the scope of the authority conferred on it, in the sense that the rules or regulations made by it have a rational acts within the object and purpose of the Statute, the court should not concern itself with the wisdom or efficaciousness of such rules or regulations. It is exclusively within the province of the legislature and its delegate to determine, as a matter of policy, how the provisions of the Statute can best be implemented and what measures, substantive as well as procedural would have to be incorporated in the rules or regulations for the efficacious achievement of the objects and purposes of the Act. It is not for the Court to examine the merits or demerits of such a policy because its scrutiny has to be limited to the question as to whether the impugned regulations fall within the scope of the regulation-making power conferred on the delegated by the Statute. Though this legal position is well established by a long series of decisions of this Court, we have considered it necessary to reiterate it in view of the manifestly erroneous approach made by the High Court to the consideration of the question as to whether the impugned clause (3) of Regulation 104 is ultra vires. In the light of the aforesaid principles, we shall now proceed to consider the challenge levelled against the validity of the Regulation 104 (3).

The High Court concluded the discussion by stating :

"Such confidentiality cannot be found to be serving any purpose of the Act merely because it was acquiesced in the past or accepted without challenge. According to Mr. Setalvad, authority to treat these documents confidential is implicit in the very power to hold the examination itself, it being necessary to secure effective achievement of the process. This is too broad a statement to admit of any scrutiny. No such power can, however, be implied unless its indispensibility of treating the question papers and names of the question setters and examiners confidential, up to a certain stage can easily be appreciated. Their premature disclosure or exposure may defeat the purpose of examinations and make a mockery of its very conception. It is, however difficult to see any purpose of continuing to keep them confidential at any rate after the declaration of the results."

We consider that the above approach made by the High Court is totally fallacious and is vitiated by its failure to follow the well-established doctrine of interpretation that the provisions contained in a statutory enactment or in rules/regulations framed there under have to be so construed as to be in harmony with each other and that where under a specific section or rule a particular subject has received special treatment, such special provision will exclude the applicability of any general provision which might otherwise cover the said topic. Regulation 102 (2), if properly construed in the setting in which it occurs, only confers a suo motu power on the Divisional Board to amend the result of the examination in respect of any candidate or candidates on its being found that such result has been affected by error, malpractice, fraud, improper conduct, etc. The 'error' referred to in the said provision has, in the context, to be understood as being limited to an error arising in consequence of malpractice, fraud, improper conduct or other similar matter of whatsoever nature. We are unable to understand this provision as conferring any right on an examinee to demand a disclosure, inspection or verification of his answer books or other related documents. All scope for doubt or speculation in relation to this matter has, however, been eliminated by the provision contained in Regulation 104 which specifically deals with the subject of verification of marks obtained by a candidate. Clause (1) of the said regulation states that any candidate who has appeared at the H.S.C. examination may apply to Divisional Secretary for verification of marks, particularly in any subject, but such verification will be restricted to check whether all the answers have been examined and whether any mistake has been committed in totalling of marks in that subject or in transferring marks correctly on the Ist cover page of the answer book as well as whether the supplements attached to the answer books as mentioned by the candidates are in tact. Clause (3) of the said Regulation imposes the further limitation that no candidate shall claim or be entitled to revaluation of his answer book or disclosure or inspection of the answer book or further documents as these are to be treated by the Divisional Boards as most confidential. It is obvious that clauses (1) and (3) have to be read together and not in isolation from each other as has apparently been done by the High Court. The right of verification conferred by clause (1) is subject to the limitation contained in the same clause that no revaluation of the answer books or supplements shall be done and the further restriction imposed by clause (3), prohibiting disclosure or inspection of the answer books. The High Court seems to have construed the last portion of clause (3) as implying that the confidentiality of the answer book is to be declared by some order of the Divisional Board and it has proceeded to hold that since no such order was brought to the notice of the Court there was no basis for treating the answer books as confidential. In our opinion, this interpretation of the concluding words of clause (3) is incorrect. What is laid down therein is that the answer books and other documents are to be treated by the Divisional Boards as most confidential. In other words this clause of the regulation contains a mandate to the Divisional Boards to treat the answer book and documents as confidential and lays down that no candidate shall be entitled to claim disclosure or inspection of the said confidential books and documents. We are also of the opinion that the High Court was in error in invoking the 'doctrine of implied power and obligation' for the purpose of holding that because the right of verification has been conferred by clause (1) of Regulation 104, there is an implied power in the examinees to demand disclosure and inspection and a corresponding implied obligation on the part of the Board to accede to such a demand. There is no scope at all for invoking any such implied power or imputing to the regulation-making authority an intention to confer such power by implication when there is an express provision contained in the very same regulation clause (3) which clearly manifests the contrary intention and states in categorical terms that there shall be no claim or entitlement for discolor or inspection of the answer books.

As already noticed, the other learned Judge (Deshpande, J) has written a separate short judgment in this group of cases expressing his doubts and reservations concerning the correctness of the conclusion reached by his colleague but he has finally wound up his judgment stating that even though we was diffident of spelling out a right of revaluation from any of the provisions contained in the regulations he would prefer to agree with the judgment prepared by Mohta, J "rather than allow my views to prevail and dissent". Having regard to the substantial nature and general importance of the question and the repercussions that would inevitably be produced by the recognition of the right to demand revaluation in public examinations of every kind conducted by Universities, School Education Boards and even bodies like the Union and State Public Service Commission, it would have been much more appropriate if the learned Judge (Deshpande. J) had independently discussed the question in all its aspects in accordance with his own light or referred the matter to a larger Bench or to a third Judge as the case may be if he felt that the view propounded in the judgment prepared by his colleague was of doubtful correctness. However that may be, we have already held that the reasons stated by the Division Bench in its Judgment in the first group of cases for holding that clause (3) of Regulation 104 insofar as it prohibits disclosure and inspection of answer books and treating them as confidential documents is ultra vires on the ground of its being in excess of the regulation-making power of the Board and is also void on the ground of unreasonableness are all incorrect and unsustainable. The validity of the prohibition against disclosure and inspection having been thus upheld by us, the entirety of the reasoning contained in the judgment of Mehta. J in support of his conclusion invalidating prohibition against revaluation contained in clauses (1) and (3) of Regulation loses its foundation. The view expressed by the learned Judge that Regulation 102 (2) which confers on the Board a suo moto power of amending the results where it is found that such a result has been affected by any error, malpractice, fraud, improper conduct, etc., Will be rendered nugatory and ineffective by the prohibition on revaluation is fallacious and unsound. While discussing the scope of the said regulation, we have pointed out that its purpose and effect is only to confer a suo moto power on the Board to correct errors in cases where irregularities like malpractices, misconduct, fraud, etc. are found out and it does not confer any right on the examinees to demand any correction of the results. In the scheme of the regulations after the publication of the results, the only right which the examinees have in relation to this matter is to ask for a verification of the results under clause (1) of Regulation 104 and the scope of such verification is subject to the limitations imposed in the said clause as well as in clause (3) of the very same regulation.