RAJESH KUMAR Vs. INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERS INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a Junior Engineer with the Haryana State Electricity Board, passed his Section 'a' examination of the AMIE in the summer of 1989 and appeared in Section 'b' of the said examination the next year. The result of the petitioner and two other candidates Kuldip Raj and Harbir Singh for the second examination was, however, withheld by the respondent-Institute and a show cause notice dated 15. 10. 1990 was issued to them for having indulged in mutual consultation, copying and adoption of malpractices etc at the time of the taking of the examination. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause notice and also filed C. W. P. No. 4259 of 1991 against the action of the respondents withholding his result. The petition was however, dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 19. 11. 1991 leaving liberty with the petitioner to file a civil suit. The petitioner, accordingly, filed a civil suit a Karnal. During the pendency of the Civil Suit, the order dated 19. 12. 1991 cancelling the petitioner's examination was conveyed to him. The petitioner, thereafter, amended the plaint to challenge the fresh action. The suit was, ultimately, decreed by the trial court and a direction was issued to the respondent- Institute to declare the petitioner's result. The respondent-institute, however, filed an appeal before the first Appellate Court and the same was allowed. The petitioner, thereafter, filed R. S. A. No. 632 of 1994 in this Court and the same was allowed vide judgment dated 4. 4. 1995 whereby the judgments of both the Courts below were set aside and the respondent-institute was directed to decide the matter afresh after giving an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to the other two candidates as well. The petitioner appeared before the respondent-Institute in accordance with the direction of this Court, but vide order dated 14. 12. 1995, the order cancelling the petitioner's result was reiterated. This decision too was challenged by the petitioner and Harbir Singh in C. W. P. No. 9699 of 1996, which was dismissed on 10. 7. 1996 by a Division Bench of this Court. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner as also Harbir Singh filed S. L. P. (Civil) No. 28 of 1997 and this was allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 25. 7. 1997 and the order of the respondentinstitute dated 14. 12. 1995 was quashed. A copy of the order of the Supreme Court has been appended as Annexure P-1. The Supreme Court also observed that the respondent-institute had disqualified the petitioners by acting in an unfair and biased manner and the method of evaluating the Unfair Means Cases was itself faulty. A direction was, accordingly, issued to declare the result forthwith and on its declaration vide Annexure P-2, the petitioner was shown as having passed in 7 out of the 8 papers but failed with 31 marks (35 being the pass mark) in the paper of Structural Design. Annexure P-2 has been impugned in the present writ petition on the plea that the action of the respondent-institute was wholly malafide (as also found by the Supreme Court in its judgments Annexure P-1) as it had taken umbrage as the petitioner had been pursuing his remedy doggedly in one Court or the other since 1990.

(2.) ON notice of motion, a reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent and an objection has been taken that the respondent-institute was not a "state" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India so as to make it amenable to the writ jurisdiction. It has also been pleaded that the petitioner's marks had been correctly assessed without any bias and that the petitioner's marksheet had also been produced before the Hon'ble Supreme Court at the time when he had impugned the order of the High Court dated 10. 7. 1996, dismissing the petition in limine. It has also been pleaded that the petitioner's claim that he be awarded 4/5 grace marks so as to enable him to pass the paper in Structural Design was without substance as no such authority lay with the respondent-Institute under the examination rules.

(3.) MR . Chhibar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-Institute has, however, placed reliance on Ghanshyam v. Institution of Engineers (India) and Anr. , (1994-1)106 P. L. R. 532, a Division Bench Judgment of this Court wherein it had been held that the respondent-Institute was not a "state" in terms of Article 12 of the Constitution.