GOURANGA PARIDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, 35 in number, seek to quash the notification dated 5-12-1996 (Annexure-4) of the Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa. Bhubaneswar cancelling the examination of English-I Arts of the Second Higher Secondary Examination, 1996 held on 2-9-1996 in the Chitrotpala College centre, Akhua-Odang and awarding cipher in the said paper to the concerned examinees.

(2.) Briefly stated, the petitioners' case, is that as students of Chitrotpala College, Akhus-Odang, they appeared in the Second Higher Secondary Examination, 1996 conducted by the Council of Higher Secondary Education-opp. party No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Council'). The examination was held on 2-9-1996 onwards. The Principal of the college was appointed as the Centre Superintendent and some of the lecturers of the college were employed as invigilators. the examination was conducted peacefully without any disturbances from any quarter and even police personnel from Patkura police station came to be detailed to maintain law and order situation and to prevent any untoward occurrence. On 2-9-1996 there was second sitting of the examination (2 p.m. to 5 p.m.-j ion Arts students in English-I When the said examination was in progress at about 3 p.m., two to three lecturers of Kendrapara arrived in the centre as the Flying Squad Party and went around the centre and detected some incriminating materials from only two examinees, one bearing roll No. 109 CD-223 from hall No. 9 and another bearing roll No. 109 CD-226 from hall No. 10. After liking their signatures on some papers the squad party fell the centre. The specific case of the petitioners is that the squad party did not detect any mal-practice or any irregularity in any of the halls except hall Nos. 9 and 10. Even the Centre Observers/supervisors who came to the centre for inspection for all the days of examination including 2-9-1996 did not detect any case of mal-practice. The petitioners did well in all the papers. When the result was published, the cases of two students referred to above were only shown to have adopted mal-practice and the result of other candidates including the petitioners was not published. When the matter stood thus the impugned decision was notified by which the examination of English-I Arts held in the second sitting of 2-9-1996 in the Chitrotpala College centre came to be cancelled and further the examinees were awarded cipher in the said paper. The petitioners challenge the validity of the impugned notification on the ground that it is arbitrary and is passed without complying principles of natural justice.The opp. parties 2 and 3 have filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioners. Their case is that on 2-9-1996 (second sitting) when the examination of English Paper-I was in progress, the Flying Squad Party vitiated the examination centre and found that the general conditions around the examination centre and inside the examination hall were disturbing with the presence of out-siders without any police protection. At first, two individual mal-practice cases were detected by the squad party who were booked under trial-practice but subsequently, the squad party found that majority of the examinees indulging in mal-practice and were also in possession of incriminating materials. On the arrival of the squad party, they threw the incriminating materials outside. The invigilators were also found to be abettors to the mat-practice. In such a situation, as it was not possible to detect individual cases for booking them under individual mal-practice, the squad party recommended for cancellation of the examination in question and submitted the report. The examination committee of the Council after taking into consideration of the materials placed before it, cancelled the examination of English Paper-I by awarding zero marks to the candidates who appeared in the examination held on 2-9-1996 (second sitting).

(3.) The petitioners have filed rejoinder affidavit sworn to by petitioner No. 1. While refuting the allegations made in the counter affidavit, it was reiterated in the rejoinder that the examination went off smoothly, and there was no mal-practice except the two individual cases in hall Nos. 9 and 10. To prevent any disturbances, one A.S.I. of Patkura police station with five members of A.P.M. Force came to be detailed as per the command certificate at Annexure-7. In the rejoinder, it was further averred that the members of the squad party who visited the centre on 2-91996 were lecturers from Kondrapara College and the Chitrotpala College in which the petitioners were reading was considered to be a rival college because the roll strength of Kondrapara College got diminished due to the establishment of Chitrotpala College.