MISS PATHAN TABASSUM BEGUM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the student, who has appeared for S.S.C.examination conducted by the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad - the Respondent No.2 during March/April, 2006. The Respondent No.2 - Board had issued a notice dated 08/05/2006 to the petitioner for purposes of holding an inquiry on 8th May, 2006 calling upon her to remain present for purposes of inquiry on 27th May, 2006. Accordingly, petitioner appeared before the officials of the Board for purposes of inquiry. The charge against the petitioner is relating to malpractices at examination and it was conveyed that the handwriting of the petitioner in the answer-sheet for the subject History and Civics appears to be in different ink. The said change in the ink is, in fact, according to the Board, is change in the handwriting. According to Board, the same is covered within the definition of malpractice as contemplated by clause 36. After holding the inquiry, the Board reserved the result of the petitioner and further debarred the petitioner from appearing for next two examinations. The aforesaid punishment meted out to her is being called in question in this petition.

(2.) THIS Court by an order dated 19-09-2006 issued notice to the respondents. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 undertook to produce the answer-sheet for perusal of the Court on the next date. Accordingly, on 26th September,2006, when the matter was called for hearing, the counsel for the respondent No.2 made available the answer-sheet for perusal. The answer-sheet is written in Urdu language. We have as such taken assistance of Shri.Shaikh M.U., Junior Translator and Interpreter, an employee of this Court, who is conversant with Urdu language. Shri Shaikh, on examination of answer-sheet, informed us that there is no change in the handwriting, although there is change in ink. We do not feel that reasonable inference can be drawn that the said change in ink can be attributable to any sort of malpractice. We got it confirmed from Shri.Shaikh M.U., who is conversant with the Urdu language, that there is, in fact, no change in the handwriting. The candidate i.e. the petitioner has given plausible explanation, which can be accepted for the change in the ink, is that she has written the paper with two different pens and as such there is a change in the ink. We feel that change in ink appeared in different parts of the same answer-sheet can be viewed seriously only if it leads to an inference that writing an answer-sheet with different inks is attributable to two different persons. However, the handwriting being similar, there is no room to arrive at such conclusion. We do not agree with the argument of learned Advocate of the respondent that mere change in ink, while writing an answer-sheet, can be considered as an unfair practice at the examination. The punishment imposed against the student, in these circumstances enumerated above, does not appear to be sustainable. We, therefore, allow the petition in terms of prayer clause (B) and (C). Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.