AJAI BAHUGUNA Vs. ZILA BASIC SHIKSHA ADHIKARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners appeared at the Junior High School Examination conducted by the Junior High School Pariksha Samiti, the Respondent No. 2 herein, in April -May, 1983. The results of the said examination were declared on 1st of July 1983. In the result sheet sent to the Petitioners College, the Petitioners Nos. 1 to 5 were shown to have secured 1st class marks while Petitioners Nos. 6 to 8 second class marks. In the remarks column, howover, it was mentioned that the Petitioners' result had been cancelled on the ground of their having used unfair means. Thereupon, the father of the Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 approached the Secretary of the aforesaid Pariksha Samiti to get the marksheets of the Petitioners and to let him know the grounds upon which the result of the Petitioners examination had been cancelled. However, the Secretary of the aforesaid Pariksha Samiti did not issue any marksheets, and, beyond generally informing the father of the Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 that the Petitioners result had been cancelled on the ground of their using unfair means, no further details were given by the Secretary. The Pariksha Samiti did not declare the result of the Petitioners even after the enquiry which is stated to have been conducted by the Examination Committee appointed to go into the cases of use of unfair means by the candidates including the Petitioners. The grievance of the Petitioners is that the action of the Pariksha Samiti in withholding/cancelling the Petitioners' results is ex facie unsustainable as no opportunity whatsoever was given to them to show cause against the alleged use of unfair means by the Petitioners.

(2.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the parties we are clearly of the opinion that the above grievance of the Petitioner is fully justified.

(3.) SIGNIFICANTLY , however, despite a specific challenge made in the writ petition in that behalf, it has not been stated in the counter -affidavit that the Petitioners were given any show cause notice against the allegations of unfair means made against them. Indeed, learned Standing Counsel did not dispute the fact that no show cause notice was given to the Petitioners at any stage. His argument, however, was that the Examination Committee had considered the report of the Centre Superintendent and the other material available on the record which clearly indicated that the Petitioners had used unfair means at the examination. He submitted that this was sufficient compliance with the principles of natural justice and the mere fact that no formal show cause notice was given to the Petitioner did not vitiate the enquiry.