SAHARA BEGUM Vs. BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner being aggrieved by the notification of the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, dt. 16-7-1987 by which notification the results of the Annual High School Certificate Examination, 1987 of the petitioner have been cancelled under Regns. 41(b) and 42(a) of Chapter-X of the Regulations of the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board's Regulation') has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution.

(2.) Petitioner's case briefly stated is that she had appeared in the Annual High School Certificate Examination, 1987, as a correspondence course candidate from Government Girls' High School, Tihidi, Centre in the district of Balasore. The Symbol of the Centre was "16-M" and her roll number was "X06". By notification dt. 23rd. June, 1987 (Annexure-1), the petitioner's results were withheld not because of any alleged malpractice but because of other reasons, thereafter the impugned notification dt. 16-7-1987 emanated which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition and it transpires from the said notification that the petitioner's results have been cancelled under Regn. 41(b) Chap. X of the Board's Regulations, meaning thereby the Examination Committee has been satisfied that the examination has not been conducted as per the rules. In other words, the Examination Committee having come to the conclusion that there has been a mass malpractice decided to cancel the results. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that since the results of some of the candidates have been declared in the Centre in question and in respect of some others, the same has been cancelled, it cannot be a case of mass malpractice and, therefore, the appropriate authority was not justified in taking action under Regn. 41(b). It must he held to be a case of individual malpractice and the power to take action for such malpractice is conferred under Regn. 42(a) whereunder rules of natural justice must be followed. Since the same has not been followed admittedly the impugned cancellation cannot be sustained.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Board (opposite party No. 1), the stand taken is that on the basis of reports received from different sources, the Examination Committee was of the opinion that there were prima facie materials to suspect about involvement of the petitioner in mass malpractice and, therefore, originally the results had been withheld by notification dt. 23rd of June, 1987. On further investigation, i.e., after scrutiny of the petitioner's answer papers by a team of expert teachers it was found that there had been a wide-scale malpractice in the Centre in question and, therefore, the Committee decided to cancel the results as per Annexure 2. It has been further asserted that as there was a case of adoption of mass malpractice, the question of adopting the procedure as required for individual malpractice did not arise.