BALRAJ SINGH Vs. PUNJAB SCHOOL EDUCATION BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 4/06/1993, I had allowed this writ petition as also C.W.P. No. 11278 of 1992 and the impugned orders of the Punjab School Education Board (hereinafter called the 'Board') cancelling the result of the petitioners of the 10 + 2 examination held in March/April, 1991 and further disqualifying them from appearing in next one examination were quashed. While allowing the writ petitions, I had observed that the reasons for allowing the writ petitions would be recorded later on. Now I proceed to record the reasons. I will deal with both the writ petitions together as common question of law and fact arise in these petitions.

(2.) Both the petitioners i.e. Balraj Singh in C.W.P. No. 5640 of 1992 and Amarbir Singh in C.W.P. No. 11278 of 1992 appeared in 10+2 examination held by the Board in March/April, 1991. A complaint was received by the Board that in various centres, Superintendents, in connivance with the Controller of Examination, had leaked the question papers in 3 subjects viz. Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics before the examination in those papers was to commence. The solutions to the questions were got prepared from experts and photostat copies thereof were made and the same were circulated amongst the students and mass-copying was indulged by various students. 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 and some 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. However, only 12 students were found to have indulged in unfair means as some answers to the questions or portion thereof fully tallied with the answers in the photo copies of the solutions, which were submitted along with the complaint.

(3.) The Board issued show cause notice to the petitioners. As far as petitioner, Balraj Singh is concerned, two separate show cause notices were issued to him alleging that answers to some questions or, portion thereof in the subjects of Mathematics and Physics were tallying with answers in photostat copies of solution (which were submitted with the complaint). In the case of petitioner, Amarbir Singh, show cause notice was issued only regarding the paper of Physics. It was mentioned in the show cause notice that the petitioners had violated Regulations 9(a), 10 and 11 of the Punjab School Education Board (Penalties for Misconduct and Use of Unfair Means in the Matriculation and Higher Secondary Examinations) Regulations, 1979 (hereinafter called the 'Regulations'). The petitioners in their reply denied the allegations of copying. They appeared before the Committee dealing with Unfair Means cases (hereinafter referred to as the 'Committee and were shown the answer books as well as the incriminating material in the form of photostat copies of the solutions and were told that the answers to some questions or portion thereof tallied exactly with the solutions in the photostat material. In may be observed here that petitioner, Balraj Singh was even asked to attempt some questions again when he appeared before the Committee but he showed his inability to solve the same.