GOPINATH SARAP Vs. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition challenging the action of the Board of Secondary Education in cancelling his result of the Annual High School Certificate Examination, 2013. Mr. A.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner appeared at the Annual High School Certificate Examination, 2013 from Dwarikanath Ucha Vidyapitha, Kalahandi though he was prosecuting his studies from Rajaram Ucha Vidyapitha, Dumeruguda in the district of Kalahandi. It is stated that on the date of examination, i.e. on 1.3.2013 the squad party had paid a visit to the examination hall where the petitioner was appearing at the examination in the subject TLH 1st sitting and unfortunately a piece of white paper was lying in front of the petitioner and the squad party seized the said paper and compelled the petitioner to sign on the said paper and on that ground his result was cancelled. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such cancellation of result is bad in law as no opportunity of hearing has been given to him and the punishment being a punitive one, compliance of principle of natural justice is mandatory.

(2.) MR . H.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Board referring to the counter affidavit submits that possession of any paper by the petitioner at the time of appearing the examination is illegal in terms of Regulation 42(c) under Section VI of Chapter X of the Board's Regulation. For ensuring discipline in the conduct of examination, the squad party was constituted for checking mal practice and since a piece of white paper was seized from the possession of the petitioner while he was appearing the Third Language Hindi Paper at D.N. Ucha Vidyalaya, Sosia, Kalahandi, on the ground of mal practice, his result was cancelled. The Board issued a notification bearing No. 3033 dated 30.4.2013, which was published in leading Oriya dailies like "The Samaj", "The Sambad" calling for representations from the candidates booked under Mal Practice, if they intend to do so, by 5.5.2013, to be heard in person and that itself is in compliance to the principle of natural justice and therefore, opportunity having been given to the petitioner, the action taken by the authorities is wholly and fully justified.

(3.) THE following principles can be called from the aforesaid English and Supreme Court decisions: