SHEO LAL VERMA Vs. THE SECRETARY, BOARD OF HIGH SCHOOL AND INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION, U.P. ALLAHABAD AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in these two petitions is one Shiva Lal Varma. He has two sons, Kishori Lal Varma and Chandra Lal Verma. The latter was a regular student of Kanda Higher Secondary School during the session 1955-1956. The other son Kishori Lal was not a regular student of this school but he nevertheless appeared at the High School Examination held at this centre in 1955-56. Both Kishori Lal and Chandra Lal were thus candidates at the High School Examination conducted in that year at that centre. Chandra Lal was apprehended by Sri Krishna Nand Joshi, one of the invigilators for using unfair means. A manuscript was found in his possession which he was using. Kishori Lal was also found to be similarly using unfair means at the examination but that part of the allegation has no direct relevance in this case because the impugned order, so far as he was concerned, was founded on the ground that he beat Sri Joshi the invigilator, who had apprehended his brother, outside the examination hall on account of his (Sri Joshi's) conduct. It is alleged that Kishori Lal felt annoyed with Sri Joshi for his having apprehended his brother, therefore when Sri Joshi came out of the examination hail, Kishori Lal with some others attacked and beat him.

(2.) The case against the two sons of the petitioner further is that after the above incidents, the Inspector of Schools concerned was deputed to make an inquiry into them and this officer after necessary investigation and hearing the two sons and their father also on the charges against them reported that they had in fact acted in the manner complained of. The report submitted by the Inspector of Schools as a result of the above inquiry is on record and according to it also both the boys and their father were heard by him but he (the Inspector of Schools) was not prepared to accept their denial. He, on the contrary, reported that the allegations made against them were substantially true. On this report the Examinations Committee, acting under clause (i) of part 1 of Chapter VI , of the Regulations of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, cancelled the examination for the year 1955-1956. In the case of both the boys and also debarred them from appearing in the examination for 1957-1958. The present petition is directed against the above orders of the Examination's Committee with respect to the two boys.

(3.) The grounds urged against the said orders, briefly, are that Kishori Lal and Chandra Lal were not given an opportunity to show cause against their alleged conduct nor were they acquainted with the evidence against them before imposing the punishment awarded to them. It is also said that evidence was heard by the Inspector of Schools at their back which vitiated the inquiry. While admitting that Kishori Lal had been given an opportunity by the Inspector of Schools in the course of inquiry, the petitioner denies that similar opportunity was given to Chandra Lal. In his case therefore the ground further is that even these proceedings were vitiated. Another ground is that the punishment awarded by the Examination's Committee is arbitrary. On behalf of the Board the reply is that Chandra Lal and Kishori Lal both were discovered in possession of certain manuscript chits for the purpose of unfairly using them in the examination. It is further alleged that Chandra Lal, after the chits had been discovered from him, left the examination hall in spite of the invigilators offering him to sit and continue the examination on another answer book to be given to him. In the case of Kishori Lal there is no such allegation, but it is contended that the chit recovered from him was taken away and destroyed. The main allegation therefore, so far as this candidate was concerned, is that he was guilty of indiscipline in attacking and beating the invigilator Sri Joshi after he came out from the examination hall. It is denied that these persons or their father were not given an opportunity to show cause, and the counter allegation in fact is that they were actually examined by the Inspector of Schools who, however, was not impressed by their explanation. The allegation by the petitioner that their demand to cross-examine the witnesses examined by the Inspector of Schools in the course of inquiry is not admitted while it is pointed out that there was nothing on the relevant file that any such request had been Made. The respondents do not therefore admit that the impugned orders passed by the Examination's Committee were made at their back or without giving an opportunity to show cause against the accusations.