CHANDAN Vs. COUNCIL OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two cases, common questions of law and fact are involved. Therefore, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, they were heard together to be governed by this common judgment.

(2.) The petitioners in both the cases challenge cancellation of the examinations and scratching of answer papers in English (Paper I), Economics (Paper II ) and Physics (Papers I and II) of the Second Arts and Science Examinations, 1987 of the Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa, conducted at the Panchayat College Centre, Bargarh, in Sambalpur district.

(3.) The facts in brief may be narrated. Petitioner Santanu, an Arts student of the Panchayat College, Bargarh, appeared in English and Economics at the Second Arts Examination, 1987 of the Council of Higher Secondary Education. As he was sick, he was permitted by the Professor in-charge of the Examination to sit for the examination in English papers in the sick room. But for some reason or other, he took the examination in Economics (Paper II ) in the class room along with other examinees. Petitioner Chandan, a student of the same college appeared in English (Paper I) and Physics (Papers I and II) in the Second Science Examination, 1987 of the Council of Higher Secondary Education and took the examination along with the other examinees. The Examination Committee (opposite party No. 3) of the Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa (opposite party No. 1) deputed a squad of supervisors to visit the examination centre of the Panchayat College, Bargarh, when examinations in English, Economics and Physics were being held. They found that the examinees frees resorted to mal-practice, such as, mass copying. They were talking amongst themselves and outsiders were freely supplying incriminating materials to them and they were further shouting inside the college compound. When the examinees saw the squad of supervisors, they threw away the incriminating materials through the windows. The Principal, the Centre Superintendent and the Invigilators were found to be helpless spectators unable to control the examinees and conduct the examinations fairly and smoothly. After return, they, submitted reports to the Examination Committee for scratching of the answer papers of English (Paper I), Economics (Paper II) and Physics (Papers I and II). As a result, all those including the petitioners who appeared in those subjects were not allotted marks in those subjects, for which they failed in the examination. It is stated by the petitioners that they did not resort to malpractice and did not copy either. Petitioner Santanu specifically averred that he wrote the answer papers in English (Paper I) from the sick room and so there was no scope to resort to malpractice. Further, the petitioners were not given opportunity by opposite party No. 1 to offer their explanation before scratching of the answer papers. Therefore, there was violation of the principle of natural justice. In the above background, the petitioners have prayed that cancellation of the examinations and scratching of the answer papers should be quashed, the answer papers should be evaluated and if they come out successful by securing pass marks, their result should be announced.