BHAIRAV NATH Vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a student of Government Boys Senior Secondary School, New Police Lines, Delhi, appeared for the 10th class examination conducted by respondent No. I-Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi in March 1990. ilia Roll No. was 471819. The petitioner appeared in the said exami- nation at the Centre in Government Boys Senior Secondary School No 2, RoopNagar, Delhi. The petitioner appeared in all the examination papers offered by him from 15th March 1990 to 30th March 1990 as per the date-sheet issued by respondent No. 1. The last paper in which the petitioner appeared was in Mathematics held on 30th March 1990. It is alleged by the petitioner that the result of the examination was declared on 4th June 1990 by respondent No. 1. When the petitioner went to find out about his result, he found that a remark "Result withheld" was mentioned against his Roll Number. He, there fore, made frantic efforts to find out why his result was withheld The petitioner thereafter received a letter dated 29th June 1990 from respondent No. l inform- ing that the petitioner should present himself in the office of respondent No. I on 20th July 1990 at 2 p.m. and it was alleged in the said letter that the petitioner had slipped any from the examination hall with his answer book in Mathematics paper held on 30th March 1990 and it amounted to use of unfair means.

(2.) . It is alleged by the petitioner that he presented himself in the office of respondent No. I on 20th July 1990 before the Results Committee and ex- plained that he did not slip away from the examination hall with his answer book in Mathematics paper and that he had handed over his answer book to the inivigilator on duty on that date According to the petitioner, the name of the invigilator to whom the answer book was handed over was one Shri Yusuf All. It is further alleged by the petitioner that the petitioner was under the impression that the members of the Committee were satisfied by his explanation, however to his utter surprise, he received a memo on 9th August 1990 through the Desk Officer of respondent No. I informing him that his entire examination for the year 1990 had been concelled and the petitioner was futher debarred from appearing in any examination of the Boaid to be held in the year 1991 and 1992. The petitioner has challenged this order of respondent No 1 dated 9th August 1990 in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner did not slip away with the answer book as alleged by responded No. I, that it was practically impossible for any candidate to slip away with,the answer book because in the said examination hall, there were only 20 examinees with two invigilatiors and there was only one door. It was further submitted that the petitioner being an outstanding player of Soccer and had he has such represented the school in several tournaments and won prizes and trophies, the petitioner did not gain anything by involving himself in mal practice which results in rustication. Learned counsel submitted that the normal procedure in conduct of examination by the Board is such that it is difficult for any candidate to slip away with the answer book. There is an attendance sheet maintained at the examination hall itself and the signatures of thsexaminec/ student are taken on various occasions on this attendance sheet; firstly when he is given the answer book along with the question paper, secondly when he takes supplementary sheet and lastly when he gives back the answer sheets to the invigilator after he has finished writing the answer book. Learned counsel submitted that the attendance sheet filed by respondent No. 1 as Annexure R-1/2 shows that the petitioner has signed the attendance sheet while taking the "answer book and also the supplementary answer book and has finally signed at the time of return of the answer book to the invigilator. This attendance sheet is kept by the invigilator with himself and he takes the signatures only after he receives the answer book. Thus, if the petitioner had slipped away with the .answer book, the invigilator would not have allowed the petitioner to sign in Column No. 6 of the attendance sheet which indicates that the answer book has been returned to the invigilator. He further submitted that the invigilator is also required to sign at the end of the examination after he receives the answer book in the present case, the invigilator has signed in the last column of the attendance sheet but later on certain remarks have been added in the column which clearly indicate that there is certain interpolation done by the invigilator or the Superintendent concerned after it was found that the answer book is not traceable. Learned counsel submitted that it was not difficult for the invigilator or the peon or the constable present at the examination hall to nab the petitioner if he had tried to run away with the answer book, but neither the petitioner was nabbed nor was the called later on by any one to find out about the answer book. Learned counsel submitted that respondent No. I has published Examination Bye-laws and under Rule 66.2' of the said Bye-laws, the procedure to be followed in cases of alleged unfair means is prescribed. Learned counsed submitted that respondent No, I did. not follow this procedure and the rules of natural justice were not complied with inasmuch as neither the .patitioner was shown the material available with the Board to come to tie .conclusion that he bad run away with the answer book nor was his explanation and reprentation considered by the Results Committee before the order debarring him was passed. Learned counsel submitted that under the said Rule his necessary to record the statement of the concerned invigilators, peon. police constable etc., if any, which is to be forwarded to the Controller of Examination of the Board along with the explanation of the candidate. The statement should contain ths time of the incident and details of the case as how the candidate took away the answer took and also the efforts made to recover the answer book. Learned counsel submitted that though respondent No. 1. has filed some statement of invigilators along with the counteraffidavits. the statements were not filed when answer to Show Cause Notice was filed by respondent No. I and he has reason to believe that these statements were not available, rather not produced when the Results Committee considered the case of the petitioner and have been procured later after the writ petition was filed. Learned counsel submitted that the statements of the invigilators now filed show that there is interpolationin these statements. Learned counsel submitted that these .statements, were procured later on by respondent No. I in order to cover their lapse in losing the answer book of the petitioner Learned counsel also referred to the extractsof the minutes of the Results Committee and contended that from the minutes it was not possible to know what was considered by the Result Committeein arriving at the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of adopting unfair Learned counsel submitted that the impugned order does not give any reason and is not possible to know on what basis the Results Committeecame .to the conclusion that the petitioner ran away with the answer sheets