GOVERNING BODY, PALSAMA +2 COLLEGE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY Vs. COUNCIL OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, ORISSA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . The petitioners are the Governing Body and the Principal of the Palsama +2 College. They challenge the order Annexure -4 by which the Council, Higher Secondary Education, Orissa, opp.party No.1 cancelled Physics Paper -1 of Science stream on the ground of mass mal practice. Petitioners put forth their case that only four students were caught raid handed with incriminating materials and, therefore, all the 98 students appearing at the examination should not be punished. It reveals from the rejoinder filed today that petitioners plead their innocence and alleges that a false report was submitted by the Flying Squad as against the examinees of Physics Paper -1, which examination was conducted on 6.3.2006. On the other hand opp.party Nos.1 and 2 have stated in their counter that the Flying Squad found the students being indulged in mass mal practice, persons who were not assigned with invigilation duty were in the surrounding area of the examination center. Accordingly the opp.party members reiterated the decision and pray to dismiss the writ petition.

(2.) MR . Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners argues that there is no proof available to the opp.party No.1 regarding mal practice resorted to by any other students except four students who were named in the report and, therefore, this Case was squarely governed by the ratio in the case Indira Gandhi Mahila Mahavidyalaya and another v. The Council of Higher Secondary Education; 2006 (II) OLR 774. He further submits that petitioners were never provided with opportunity of hearing before taking the decision in Annexure -4 by the opp.party -members and, therefore, such decision of opp.parties is violative of principle of natural justice. On the other hand Mr. Jena, learned counsel for opp.parties supports the plea taking in to account the counter and the decision taken in Annexure -4. He argues that providing an opportunity of hearing is neither the procedure provided in the statute nor the mandate of any law. In support of that submission he relies on the decision in the case of Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha and others; A.I.R. 1970 SC 1269.