RAJA MOHAPATRA Vs. BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions seek the identical relief of quashing of the notification by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa cancelling the whole of the Annual High School Certificate Examination, 1987 held at the centre of Hadibandhu Ucha Vidyapitha, Cuttack as not having been conducted as per the rules of the Board and for other reliefs differently. Since both the cases are for the identical relief mainly, they are disposed of by this common judgement. O.C.J. No. 1996/87 has been filed by the students of the Nayabazar High School, Cuttack who appeared at the Annual High School Certificate Examination, 1987 at the Hadibandhu Ucha Vidyapitha Centre for the relief as aforesaid and for the additional relief of issue of a writ of mandamus directing the opposite party Board of Secondary Education, Orissa (for brevity 'the Board') to publish the results of the petitioners. In the case, the Centre Superintendent and Headmaster of Hadibandhu Ucha Vidyapitha has been impleaded as opposite party No. 2. O.J.C. No. 2038/87 has been filed by the Headmaster of Nayabazar High School, Cuttack for the relief of quashing of the notification of the Board cancelling the examination held at the Hadibandhu Ucha Vidyapitha Centre, or in the alternative to direct the opposite party Board to hold the Annual High School Certificate Examination for the year 1987 afresh for the candidates of his school, to injunct the opposite party Board from holding the Supplementary High School Certificate Examination, 1987 before holding each a fresh examination, and to declare regulation 41 of Chap. X of the regulations framed under the Orissa Secondary Education Act, 1953 as ultra vires S.11 of that Act. The impugned notification which has been annexed as Annexure-3 to O.J.C. No. 1996/87 and as Annexure-1 to O.J.C. No. 2038 of 1987, so far as relevant is as follows :

(2.) The facts pleaded by the Board justifying the cancellation, briefly stated, are that the Annual High School Certificate Examination of 1987 was held from 3-4-87 to 13-4-87. The Flying Squad appointed for the purpose of checking the examinations submitted one report on 3-4-87 and another on 10-4-87 in respect of the centre and a report from the observer of the centre was received on 16-4- 87. The Observer had reported that the answer papers at the centre were being handed over by candidates to nearby candidates, additional answer papers were handed over to nearby students, outsiders climbed over the walls and handed over papers, outsiders also climbed the top of the building and dropped written copy papers, the employees of the school brought copy papers from outside and supplied the same to the candidates and test papers were brought from outside into the hall, and had concluded that the examination was conducted without sanctity and suggested that the answer papers be examined by experts. The Examination Committee in its meeting held on 26-4-87 considered the various reports received from the Centre Superintendents, Deputy Centre Superintendents, Inspectors of Schools, Flying Squads and Observers regarding the conduct of examination in various centres and resolved to open separate files centre-wise in respect of those centres against which there were adverse reports. In all, the Examination Committee considered 105 case records and decided on 9-5-87 to complete all the case records in all the cases for further consideration. It was felt by the Examination Committee that many of the centres deserved severe penalties, but decided that before imposition of penalty against any centre, further examination of records was necessary. Pursuant to the suggestions by the Observers and direction of the Examination Committee, the examination papers were examined by the Expert Committees which committees submitted their reports on 15-5-87 with regard to specific allegations relating to the examination papers. The matter was examined by the Examination Committee on 17-5-87 and 18-5-87 along with the reports and the matter was taken up for further consideration on 31-5-87 on which date after due consideration it was resolved to cancel the examination of 61 centres wholly and partially in respect of 2 centres, to review the examination of 23 centres and to exempt 20 centres. In pursuance of such decision of the Examination Committee, the impugned notification of 23-6-87 (for convenience referred to as 'annexure-3') was published. It is thus contended by the Board that the decision to cancel the examination at the centre has been bona fide taken after due deliberations and examination of the relevant material and that the conclusion of adoption of mass unfair practice at the centre had been amply established. As regards the power of the Examination committee to cancel the examination as a whole, reliance is placed on regulation 41(b) of ch. X which empowers the Examination Committee, if satisfied on the basis of the reports received from the Superintendents/Deputy Superintendents and/or Supervisors, Inspectors and Observers that the examination had not been conducted as per rules to take appropriate steps including cancellation of the examination wholly or in part.

(3.) Pursuing the case of the petitioners in O.J.C. No. 1996/87, Mr. R. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for them, contests the claims of the Board by challenging the vires of regulation 41 vesting powers in the Examination Committee to cancel the examination on the ground that the Orissa Secondary Education Act, 1953 (Orissa Act X of 1953) (for short 'the Act'), while vesting the power in the Board itself to conduct the examination and publish the results does not provide for delegation thereof to the Examination Committee, and hence exercise of the power by the Examination Committee in pursuance of the Regulations is ultra vires the Act, and has further urged that even conceding such power to the Examination Committee under the Regulations, yet on one hand the power has not been property exercised inasmuch as the authority under regulation 41(a) regarding appointment of observers and Flying Squads by the Examination Committee has been abdicated in favour of the Inspector of Schools, and that otherwise also there was no material before the Examination Committee to come to the conclusion that mass malpractice had been resorted to at the centre. Dr. S.C. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner in O.J.C. No. 2038/87 while adopting the submissions made by Mr. Mohanty has further urged that no rules having been framed by the Examination Committee as contemplated under regulation 41(a), the notification in Annexure-3 as also the resolution of the examination Committee of 31-5-87 (Annexure-14A to O.J.C. No. 1996/87) on which Annexure-3 in based, cancelling the examination conducted as per the rules is bad.