C KATHIRVEL MINOR Vs. DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT EXAMINATIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a student, who had written the Higher Secondary Examination (Plus Two) in March, 1994, having register No. 853045. He was studying in Aringar Anna H.S. School, Ayyanpettai and he along with 33 other students took the examination in the Government School at Wallajabad. THE entire set of 34 students were accommodated in two halls. One Balakrishan, the 5th respondent herein, was the Assistant Supervisor in the hall, in which the petitioner wrote the examination. On 21-3-1994, when the petitioner was writing the Physics examination, the third respondent (Chief Educational Officer) as well as members of flying squad visited the examination hall at about 12-45 pm. THEy did not notice any untoward incident. THEre was no allegation of copying by any of the supervisors and the petitioner had completed the entire examination by writing all the papers. While so, he received a letter on 3-6-1994 from the second respondent asking him to show cause why all the examinations written by him in March 1994 should not be cancelled and why he should not be debarred from writing any examination for the next three sessions. THE notice was based on the ground that the petitioner was copying from another student, who was in the front seat, having register No. 853044. On 6-6-1994, the petitioner submitted his explanation denying the allegation and also stating that neither the flying squad nor the third respondent had noticed any irregularity at the time of their visit. THE petitioner also explained that the seating arrangements were such that there was no possibility of the petitioner copying from the student having register No. 853044. According to the petitioner, he was not sitting immediately behind the said student, but he was diagonally placed far away from the said student. THE other students who wrote the examination in the very small hall had also given a joint supporting statement in favour of the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner is a brilliant student, who had scored 403 out of 500 marks in the tenth standard public examination. THE second respondent proceeded to pass final orders on 23-6-1994 and not only cancelled his March 1994 examination, but also debarred him from the next three sessions, from writing the examination. Since the petitioner did not net his results, he tiled the above writ petition WP. No. 11269/1994 on 30-6-1994 for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 2, to publish the results of the examination. THE writ petition was admitted on 20-7-1994 and having regard to the urgency in the matter, I ordered notice in the miscellaneous petition returnable by one week. Writ Petition No. 12394 of 1994 is to quash the final order dated 23-6-1994 and also to direct the publication of the results. I also directed the learned Government Advocate to produce the answer papers of both the students so that it could be verified whether there is prima facie evidence of copying, it is significant to note that identical proceedings were taken against the candidate with register No. 853044 for having allowed the petitioner herein to copy from his answer book. He was also visited with the same punishment. But, for some reason or the other, that student has not challenged the order of cancellation of the examination. THE answer papers were produced by the learned Government Advocate and on a careful perusal of the same, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there, are quite a number of differences in the answer sheets and by a mere perusal of the same, there cannot be a finding of guilt. Since the entire issue lies in a narrow compass, I directed the learned Government Advocate to produce the tiles, and with the consent of the parties, I am disposing of the writ petition on the basis of the files, without any counter affidavit from the respondents.

(2.) BEFORE actually referring to the answer papers, I would do well to find out the manner in which the alleged copying was found out and brought to the notice of the second respondent. On the very date of the examination dated 21-3-1994, the Chief Supervisor of the examination centre at Wellajabad, the fourth respondent herein, had written a letter to the second respondent stating that in room No. 15, the candidate with register No. 853045 had copied from the candidate with register No. 843044 and the same was found on an examination of the answer papers. It is further stated that the same was found out by the flying squad who came alongwith the Chief Educational Officer. A similar letter was also written by the hall suervisor Balakrishnan, the fifth respondent herein. Alongwith the said letters, a rough sketh showing the seating arrangements in room No. 15 was also sent. Here and now, I may point out that these three documents do not bear any date stamps of the second respondent, regarding the receipt on the same by the second respondent. There is no doubt that some initial was made in the first document which is not very clear. I am adverting to this aspect of the case, because, according to the petitioner, no such complaint was given by the hall supervisor. Learned counsel for the petitioner buttresses this argument by stating that the petitioner was allowed to write the rest of the examination without any objection and without any alteration in the seating arrangements. In the show case notice dated 30.5.1994, no doubt, there is a reference about the letter of the Supervisor dated 21-3-1994. But the show cause notice proceeds to say that the factum of the candidate with register No. 853045 copying from the candidate with register No. 853044 was found out from the examination of the answer papers by the flying squad. As I have already indicated, a show cause notice was also given to the other candidate with register No. 853044. The significant part of the explanation offered by both the candidates as well as the statement of the other candidates who wrote the examination from the very same examination hall, is that the flying squad did come at about 12-45 pm but they did not notice any untoward incident, nor did they catch any student While copying. They had also enclosed a seating arrangement sheet which shows that the petitioner was not seated directly behind the candidate with register No. 853044. In the final order dated 23-6-1994, after referring to the power of the authority under Clause 10 Rule 3 of the Scheme of Higher Secondary Examinations, the second respondent only says that the explanation given by the student was not satisfactory. He then proceeds to confirm the punishment.

(3.) I will now refer to the answer papers which were produced before the Court. A careful perusal of the two answer sheets shows that the petitioner had attempted only those questions which were answered by the candidate with register No. 853044. The answers are also, almost in identical terms. The explanation of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since most of the students learnt from the same teacher and referred to the same guide books, the answers are bound to be identical. I am unable to a ccept this stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The answers could be the same, but not the language. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, admits that the fact that the same questions have been attempted to by the petitioner throws some doubt that the petitioner might have copied. He however, points out that there is at least one question which the petitioner had attempted at the end, and which the other candidate did not, at all, attempt. This question is in Part ?E? bearing question No. 46. It is true that this question has not been elaborately answered by the other candidate, though he has made an attempt. The petitioner has certainly answered this question elaborately. Learned counsel for the petitioner also points out certain other differences between the two answer papers, especially with reference to a diagram under question No. 49. But I must say that, on a careful perusal of the answer papers, a reasonable person will certainly apprehend that one of the students had copied from other. In this case, since the petitioner was seated behind the other student, there is a reasonable suspicion that the petitioner alone had copied from the other candidate.