SUSHMARANI DAS Vs. BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common grievance raised by the petitioners in these writ petitions is against the action of the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa (opp. party No. 1) in cancelling the Certified Teachers' Examination (C.T. Examination) and Elementary Teachers' Examination (E. T. Examination) held in April, 1990 at the Sreekrishna Academy Centre where they were appearing. Though 63 examinees have filed these writ petitions, in all 308 candidates are stated to have suffered the consequence of the impugned action of the Board. The petitioners have prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus quashing the decision of the Examination Committee of the Board as per the notification dated 23-10-91 (Annexure-1) and directing the opp. parties to restore the results of the candidates of the C.T./S.T. Examination, 1990 of S. K. Academy Centre or in the alternative directing the Board to hold another Examination forthwith without collection of examination fees. The material portion of the impugned order as per Annexure-1 reads as follows :

(2.) The material facts as evident from the averments in the writ petitions and the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners are that the petitioners appeared at the 1990 Annual Examination as private candidates since the institutions in which they were regular students were not recognised by the State Govt. The Centre Superintendent who is Headmaster of a High School conducted the examination which, according to the petitioners, was in accordance with the Rules and Regulations formulated by the Board. The flying squad and supervisors appointed by the Board had visited the S. K. Academy centre. When the result of the examination was declared it was found from the result-sheet as per Annexure-2 that the result of four candidates of the centre bearing Nos. 095, 102, 173 and 244 were withheld on the ground of mal-practice and results of the two candidates bearing Nos. 003 and 236 were withheld for other reasons, but subsequently the petitioners learnt that the result in all theory papers at the centre was cancelled by the impugned order (Annexure-1). The petitioners assail the order mainly on the grounds that (a) it is not a speaking order; (b) the Board is not competent to direct that there shall be no further examination in the cancelled papers and results of the affected candidates shall be processed taking the marks of the cancelled papers as '0' (zero); (c) since the result sheet showed that the results of four candidates were withheld on the ground of mal-practice there was no reason or justification to cancel the results of all students; and (d) that the impugned decision is vitiated due to non-compliance with the principle of natural justice inasmuch as no notice was issued to the Centre Superintendent before taking the decision. The petitioners however conceded the power of the Board and its examination Committee to cencel the entire examination on the ground of mass mal-practice in certain circumstances. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that there is no codified rule specifying the procedure to be followed by the Board in holding C.T/ E.T. Examination, if there is any such rule/ regulation it is neither notified for knowledge of the candidates concerned nor printed on the reverse of the Admit card which is the procedure followed in High School Certificate Examination and certain other Examinations. Therefore, according to the petitioners, it is entirely the look out of the Board to make arrangements for holding the Examination in accordance with the Rules/ Regulations and if the Board fails to discharge its duty in the matter the examinee should not suffer. It is the further contention of the petitioners that the Centre Superintendent who was the principal authority in charge of conducting the examination at the Centre in question did not submit any report of alleged mar-practice amongst the examinees. In the absence of such basic material the decision of the Board to cancel the examination was vitiated and should be quashed.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opp. party No. 1-Board it is averred, inter alia, that during the examination at S. K. Academy centre members of the special squad had inspected the centre on different dates and had reported about mass mal-practice at the Centre. Reports to this effect were received from the Centre Superintendent, Deputy Centre Superintendent and the officers of the flying squad. On consideration of these reports the Examination Committee of the Board in exercise of jurisdiction vested in it by Regulation 17(d) of Chapter XD of the Board' Regulations held that the examination was not conducted properly as per Rules and Regulations and therefore decided to cancel all the theory papers of the S. K. Academy centre, the Committee further decided not to have any further examination in the cancelled papers in the same year. In paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit it is averred, inter alia, that the centre was visited by the special squad on 24-4-90 and 28-4-90 and by two officers of the Board who were appointed by the Examination Committee under Regulation 17(a) on 25-4-90. It is contended by the opp. party that in case of mass mal practice and improper conduct of examination the question of giving opportunity of hearing to the candidates concerned or the Centre Superintendent does not arise at all. It is asserted by the opp. party-Board that the Examination Committee is empowered to frame such Rules and Regulations as may be necessary for efficient conduct of the examination and to appoint officers besides the Superintendent of the Centre for supervision, inspection and surprise check of examination work and the Committee is also empowered to take any such decision in respect of the conduct of C. T. Examination basing on the reports of the officers appointed for the purpose along with the report of the Centre Superintendent.