BABITA JENA Vs. COUNCIL OF HIGHER SECONDARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners who had appeared at the Annual Higher Secondary Examination, 2001 call in question the decision of the opposite party No. 1, Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa cancelling the examination in English Paper -II and awarding '00' marks in the said paper.

(2.) THE petitioners' case in brief is that having passed the High School Certificate Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa and securing good percentage of marks, they had been admitted into Jagannath Mahavidyalaya, Ashok Nagar, Batto in the district of Keonjhar. They appeared at the Annual Higher Secondary Examination, 2001 duly permitted by the Council. The examination centre was earlier scratched and as such the College authority decided not to conduct the examination taking the Principal of the College as the Centre Superintendent. The Sub -Collector, Anandapur was requested by the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 to conduct the examination through their administrative staff so as to have a fair and impartial examination since the college teachers were on strike. The examination was conducted with the help of the Block staff. The petitioners claim that the examination was conducted as per the norms fixed by the Council without any disturbance and hindrance from any quarter. When the result of +2 (Science) examination was published on 8.6.2001, they found that their result has been withheld vide Annexure -1. The petitioners approached the opposite party No. 5 to know the reason of withholding of the result. However the petitioners came to know that the result of the petitioners' institution was cancelled and they were awarded '00' marks in English Paper -II, as there was report of mass malpractice to have been adopted in the Centre. The petitioners claim that English Paper -11 examination was held on 13.3.2001 and to the best of the information, there was no malpractice adopted by anyone of the examinees nor mass mal practice. However it is alleged that on inquiry by the guardians of the petitioners, they come to know that Sri Sarat Chandra Mishra, opposite party No. 6 had approached the Governing 3ody of the College where his nephew Sri Rabinarayan Mishra was continuing as a Lecturer in Botany and whose services were terminated owing to disciplinary proceeding for his reinstatement, but since the Governing Body did not agree to the suggestion, in order to harass the management as well as the students a false report had been given by him. It is further claimed that the petitioners have secured very good marks in other papers and would have succeeded had this paper not been cancelled. The petitioners, therefore, pray for quashing the decision of the Council in cancelling their result.

(3.) A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioners disputing each of the facts mentioned in the counter affidavit. It is specifically pleaded that since no specific question of malpractice has been pointed out nor has it been stated as to in which questions and in respect of which of the candidates, the Examination Committee found similarity so as to take the view that the examination was not conducted in terms of rules and there was adoption of mass malpractice, the examination in English Paper -II could not have been cancelled by the Council. A further affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties 1 and 2 stating therein that out of the 20 petitioners except petitioners 3, 6, 18 and 19 all others have appeared in the supplementary Examination held in the year 2002. The chart showing the names and Roll numbers of the petitioners who have appeared at the examination has been attached to the further affidavit.