SWARNIM SACHIN CHINGRE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Swarnim a 12th standard student ( Science stream), by the present petition is endeavoring to save her three precious academic years by calling in question the legality and correctness of the impugned decision of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education (For short 'the Board'), canceling her March 2019 examinations and debarring her from appearing up to July 2021 examination, on the ground of misconduct.

(2.) Heard the learned counsels Shri P.F.Patil for the petitioner, Ms. Surekha Mahajan for the Board and AGP for the State.

(3.) The brief facts which are necessary to decide the issues involved in the present matter, are narrated herein below. The petitioner appeared for the 12th standard final examination conducted by the Board, in the month of March 2019. On 12th April, 2019, the Board called explanation from the petitioner in relation to the difference in handwriting as well as difference in pen and ink noticed by the Board in the answer sheets of the petitioner. The petitioner on the same day submitted her explanation in addition to her specimen handwriting to demonstrate that while writing she uses 'cursive' as well as 'print' font and in this way she admits difference in handwriting with a defence that the alleged difference in handwriting is of the petitioner herself. The petitioner further admits difference in pen and ink with a plea that her pen ran out of ink at the time of writing answers, therefore, she changed the pen. The Board conducted the inquiry under provisions of the 'Maharashtra State Board's Procedure for Inquiry', through the Enquiry Officer. On 28.5.2019, the Board declared online result of 12th standard examination. With regards to petitioner's result, the Standing Committee of the Board, took a decision to withhold the result of petitioner and to prohibit her from appearing upto July 2021 exam. Consequently on the joint request of the petitioner and her father, the Standing Committee reviewed its decision, but not recalled and maintained the same.