PATEL JAGRUTIBEN Vs. GUJARAT SECONDARY EDUCATION BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This group of petition are filed by the petitioners under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for an appropriate writ, direction and/ or order directing the respondent-Board to declare the result of the students who have appeared in the New S.S.C. Examination and to permit them to prosecute further studies in Standard XI by quashing and setting aside the impugned orders cancelling the result of their examinations.

(2.) For the purpose of appreciating the controversy raised in this group of petitions, it is necessary to set out facts in the first matter, i.e., Special Civil Application No. 5771 of 1990 since the facts are almost similar in all the petitions.

(3.) This petition, i.e., Special Civil Application No. 5751 of 1990 filed by Jagrutiben, a minor girl of 16 years of age through Kalabhai Maganbhai, her father. It is her case that she was a student of Swaminarayan Dwi Satabdi Smarak High School, Lacarpur, Taluka and District Gandhinagar. She was having brilliant academic career to her credit and even in 8th and 9th Standard she had obtained 59% and 58% percentage of marks respectively. She appeared in Std. 10th (New S.S.C.) examination held by the respondent-Board in March 1990. Even in preliminary examination of the S. S. C. she obtained 52.43% of marks. Her seat number in the Board examination was A. 52686. She attended all the papers and it is her case that she had done very well and was expecting first class with very good marks. To her utter shock and surprise, however, she was served with a notice dt. 20/06/1990, on Ju 22/06/1990. It was alleged in the notice that she had attempted to secure more marks indirectly with the help of the Examiner/Moderator or other persons and, therefore, her result was kept in abeyance. She was, therefore, called upon to show cause why proceeding should not be initiated and why punishment of cancellation of the result should not be imposed and she should not be debarred from appearing in four subsequent examination. The petitioner replied vide her letter dt. 22/06/1990 denying the allegations levelled against her. It was stated by Jagrutiben as well as by her father Kalabhai that neither the petitioner nor her father had made any attempt to get the marks increased and that they were not knowing anything about the alleged act. The petitioner was asked to remain present on 6/07/1990 before the Committee constituted by the respondent-Board. On that day, she was asked whether she would admit the guilt in respect of the illegality and irregularity alleged to have been committed by her and when she denied to admit the same, the impugned order was passed by the Board on 25/07/1990 cancelling the result of the examination in which she appeared and also imposing punishment of debarring her from appearing in four subsequent examinations. It is this order which is challenged in the present petition. Similar orders are passed against some other students and they are challenged in this group of petition.