ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH Vs. SECRETARY, BOARD OF HIGH COURT AND INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION, U.P. ALLAHABAD AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Ashwani Kumar Singh was a student of Udyog Vidyalaya Intermediate College, Koelsa, Azamgarh. In 1981 he appeared at the Intermediate Examination conducted by respondent No. 1. Petitioner was declared successful. After declaration of the result, petitioner left the aforesaid college and took admission in B.A. Part I in G.S.S. Degree College, Koelsa, District Azamgarh. Subsequently, it appears that proceedings against the petitioner with regard to use of unfair means at the aforesaid examination were taken by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Allahabad. On 1-12-81 the Board sent a letter to the Principal of Udyog Vidyalaya Intermediate College, Koelsa intimating that examination Committee was to visit the College on 15th of Dec., 1981 and petitioner be asked to present himself before the said Committee on that date. The petitioner admittedly did not appear before the Examination Committee. His result was, subsequently, cancelled on 11-1-82. However, petitioners care is that he did not receive any intimation from the Board about cancellation of the result. On rumour spreading that his result had been cancelled by the Board, he went to the Board and found the same to be true. The petitioner, thereafter, filed this writ petition for quashing the order of the Board cancelling his result The main ground taken in the writ petition is that as petitioner had not been given any opportunity of hearing before cancellation of the result, the order was invalid.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for State Learned State Counsel pointed out from the record that intimation of the date of enquiry which was to be made by Examination subcommittee had been seat to the Principal of Udyog Vidyalaya Intermediate College, Koelsa, Azamgarh on 1-12-1981 and on that basis the counsel submitted that the same would be considered intimation given to the petitioner and no further action was required to be taken by the Board in that regard. We are unable to accept the contention of learned State Counsel. The Petitioner was entitled to an opportunity being given before his result has been cancelled. For that reason the petitioner should have been intimated about the date on which proceedings was intended to be taken against him. The petitioner, admittedly left the College in July, 1981 upon declaration of his result being made in his favour. He has no link left with the College. Intimation of the date on which Examination Sub-Committee wanted to visit the College for making enquiry should have been made to the petitioner. Nothing was brought to our notice which satisfy the requirement of sending intimation to the petitioner. As a result, the commission to send intimation about the date of visit of Examination Sub-Committee, reads to irresistible conclusion that enquiry proceedings was taken against the petitioner behind his back and without any notice to him. Accordingly, cancellation of his result is illegal. It is now settled law that result of a student appearing at the examination cannot be cancelled without opportunity being given to him (see Ghanshayam Das Gupta Vs. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., AIR 1962 SC 1110 and Triambak Pati Vs. Board of High School & Intermediate Education, U.P., AIR 1973 Alld 1 (FB). Relying on the aforesaid two decisions, we hold that order cancelling result of the petitioner is illegal and void. The same is quashed.

(3.) In the result, writ petition succeeds and is allowed Order of the Board dated 11-1-1982 cancelling result of the petitioner is quashed. Petition allowed.