DEEPANJALI PRADHAN Vs. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners appeared in the Annual +2 Arts Examination, 2008 conducted by the Council of Higher Secondary Education (for short, 'the C.H.S.E.') as ex-regular students from Panchayat Samiti College, Suguda. The result of the petitioners with all other ex-regular students of the said college was withheld. On enquiry, the petitioners ascertained that the Controller of Examinations, C.H.S.E. has withheld the result of the said students on the ground that the papers in History as well as extra optional subject, i.e., Economics were under reexamination by the review committee and they were given to understand that thereafter the result would be published. Ultimately, the result of such students including the petitioners was published on 25.7.2008 wherein they were declared failed. They were provided with memorandum of marks and they found that it was reflected therein that they have been awarded 'O' marks in History and Economics papers even though they have secured better marks in all other subjects. All the ex-regular students of the said institution, save and except only one, were declared failed owing to award of 'O' marks in the aforesaid subjects. The petitioners being aggrieved by such action of the opp.party No. 1 - Controller of Examinations, have preferred the present writ petition.

(2.) Mr. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the C.H.S.E. without assigning any reason and without affording an opportunity of hearing, has arbitrarily awarded 'O' marks in the aforesaid two papers to the students of the said college when the entire examination was conducted smoothly. There was no report of any untoward incident in or around the examination hall/centre on the relevant dates when the examinations in the aforesaid two papers were conducted. It was further submitted that the invigilator, Centre Superintendent and above all, the Flying Squad have reported regarding free and fair conducting of the examination in the centre and, therefore, in the absence of any such material, no inference can be drawn that there was mal-practice or unfair means adopted by the examinees. Under such circumstances, the students including the petitioners could not have been awarded 'O' marks in the aforesaid two papers. Mr. Das further submitted that the decision of the authorities in awarding 'O' marks in the aforesaid two papers are purely based on conjectures and surmises drawn from presumption without any basis.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the Controller of Examinations, inter alia, stating that while the result of Higher Secondary Examination, 2008 was being processed, some serious abnormalities were detected relating to certain examination centres and the results of those colleges were kept withheld for thorough examination and scrutiny. So far as the ex-regular students of the petitioner's college is concerned, such abnormalities were detected for which the result was withheld by a notification dated 9.6.2008. In relation to the Economics Paper-II, the Subject Expert after scrutinizing the answer papers gave its report on 14.7.2008 to the opp.party No. 1 - Controller of Examinations with the observation that all the candidates have thoroughly resorted to wholesale mal-practice in the sitting of examination. The report indicated that (1) all except Roll No. 437 NA009, have answered the question in Oriya language; (2) all candidates, who have answered the question in Oriya language have committed error in answering question No. 1(d) and 2(f), have answered bits a, b, e, f, g in question No. 3 in that order, have answered bits a, b, c, d, f of question No. 4 in that order, have answered the same questions from group-C, i.e., question Nos. 5, 8, 9 and 11, have taken the same assured mean in their answer to question No. 11; (3) only candidate, who answered the question in English has also subjected to the same error in regard to answer 1(d) as his counterpart, who answered in Oriya language. He answered to bits b, c, d, f and g to question No. 3 and the bits f and c to question No. 4. He also answered question Nos. 5, 8, 10 and 11 from group-C; (4) all candidates, who have answered in Oriya and English have used book language. While observing as above, the Expert Committee have strongly opined that all such candidates have adopted mass mal-practice in the sitting of the examination.