SECRETARY BOARD OF HIGH SCHOOL AND INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION UTTAR PRADESH Vs. VIR PAL SINGH BHADORIA DIST ETAWAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a special appeal from an order of a learned single Judge of this Court, dated 24-12-3.959. The respondent was the petitioner before the learned single Judge. He was a student of class X at the Government Intermediate College, Etawah, during the session 1958-59. He was found using unfair means at the High School Examination held in that year in the month of March/April. The Examinations' Committee of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, after necessary enquiries, held him guilty of the charge of using unfair means and made an order cancelling his examination for the session 1958-59 and debarring him from appearing in the examination to be held in 1959-60.

(2.) Originally the respondent, petitioner, before the learned single Judge, attacked the legality of the proceedings held against him by the Examinations' Committee and impugned the entire order made by it, including the portion whereby his examination of 1959-60 was cancelled, but he later confined his relief against the portion of the order which debarred him from appearing in the examination to be held in 1960. His case before the learned single Judge was that the said Committee possessed no such power to debar him either under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, (Act II of 1921), or the regulations made thereunder. The learned single Judge examined the Act, accepted the respondent-petitioner's contention and directed the Board not to give effect to that portion of its order which directed the respondent-petitioner's exclusion from the future examination of 1960. The Board has come up in appeal and it is submitted before us that the learned single Judge was wrong in the conclusion at which he has arrived and that the Board had power to order exclusion of the respondent-petitioner. Before examining the contention advanced before us, we might briefly state that the learned single Judge has approached the question, which was canvassed before him, from the point of view that the regulation under which this order was passed imposes a penalty and that the regulation was not necessarily essential for exercising the power to conduct an examination by the Board. The learned single Judge has come to the conclusion that inasmuch as the particular regulation was made with reference to the conduct of the examination there was in effect no nexus between the regulation and the expressly granted power relating to the conduct of the examination under Section 7 of the Act.

(3.) It is contended by the Board that the regulation is within the powers granted under the Intermediate Act of 1921. In order to determine whether it is intra vires or not, we would like to refer to certain provisions of the Intermediate Education Act.