SANJEEV SHARMA Vs. PUNJAB SCHOOL EDUCATION BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges order dated September 25, 1991, Annexure P/3, whereby his result of 10 + 2 Examination was cancelled and he was debarred to appear in the next one examination.

(2.) Punjab School Education Board (hereinafter called "the Board"), the respondent, conducted 10 + 2 Examination in April, 1991. A complaint was received by the Board that in different centres the Superintendents in connivance with Controller of Examinations, leaked the papers in three subjects, i.e. Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, before the examination and their solutions were got prepared from the experts, which were photocopied and such copies were circulated among the students and there was mass-copying. The Board took action on the complaint. The examiners and head-examiners were asked to report. The answer books were examined. Some of the examiners reported that there was mass-copying. Others reported to the contrary. Ultimately, the Board came to the conclusion that it was not a case of mass- copying. The Board detected the cases of 28 students and took action for use of unfair means in the examination. Subsequently, only 12 students were found to have copied, as some answers to questions or portions thereof were fully tallying with the answers in the photocopies of the solution papers submitted alongwith the complaint. Their result was cancelled and they were debarred from taking one examination. Out of them the petitioner has approached this Court in this writ petition, questioning the action of the Board.

(3.) The Board issued show-cause notice to the petitioner, asserting that the answers of some of the questions or portions thereof were tallying with answers in the photostat copies of solution papers, submitted with the complaint and, thus, he had violated Regulations 9(a), 10 and 11 of the Punjab Education Board (Penalties for Misconduct and Use of Unfair Means in the Matriculation and Higher Secondary Examinations) Regulations, 1979. The petitioner in his reply denied the allegation of copying. The petitioner was not asked to attempt the questions again. The Unfair Means Committee recorded the finding that the petitioner had copied during the examination from photostat copies of the solution paper and passed the impugned order. The stand of the petitioner is that as the photostat copies of the solution papers were neither recovered from him nor from the examination-hall, the regulations on which reliance was placed by the Board, were not applicable. On merits, he stated that he had not copied. In other words, the stand is that there was no evidence before the Unfair Means Committee to record findings of use of unfair means by the petitioner in copying. The Board's stand, as already stated above, is that the petitioner had violated the Regulations in copying and his case is covered by the Regulations aforesaid. In the alternative, reliance has also been placed on Regulation 19 to the effect that the petitioner answered the questions or portions thereof by seeking help from other sources.