RAM MAHESH RAI Vs. STATE BOARD OF TECHNICAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner praying that an order dated the 24th March, 1969, (Annexure 4), passed by the Board of Examinations on the State Board of Technical Education be quashed. By this order the Board of Examinations held that the petitioner had adopted unfair means at the supplementary diploma engineering examination of 1967, held in 1968, and was declared to have failed in the examination and was also debarred from appearing at any diploma examination conducted by the State Board of Technical Education prior to the annual diploma engineering examination of 1969. The petitioner has also prayed, further, that the respondents be directed to publish the result of the petitioner on the basis of the marks obtained by him in the Board Examination of the year 1967, (supplementary examination), held in 1968.

(2.) THE facts and the circumstances of the case are as follows: THE petitioner was a student of the Government Polytechnic in Purnea in the years 1964 to 1967 and he had appeared in the final diploma examination in 1967. He had failed in three papers, namely (i) Electrical Technological Paper III, (ii) Electrical Technological Paper IV, and (iii) Drawing. He had been allowed to appear compartmentally in the supplementary examination held in June, 1968. THEreafter an order was passed on the 24th October, 1968, by the Controller of Examinations, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 1, stating that a number of candidates, including the petitioner, had failed at the supplementary diploma engineering examination, 1967, as they had adopted unfair means, and they were debarred from appearing at the 1968 supplementary, 1969 annual and 1969 supplementary examinations. THEreafter some of the candidates had come up to this Court in Writ applications, numbered as C. W. J. C. Nos. 1111, 1189, and 1190 of 1968. All these three cases were decided by this court by judgment and order dated the 19th December, 1968, and the applications were allowed and the order passed by the Board of Technical Education, Bihar, dated the 24th October, 1968, was quashed. This court directed that if the Board desired to proceed against the petitioners of those cases, the matter may be taken up after giving them a chance to explain the charge as to unfair means they were said to have adopted. It is stated that in pursuance of the judgment of this Court, a show cause notice dated the 19th February, 1969, was issued to the petitioner and a copy of it has been appended as Ann. 2. THE petitioner had shown cause on the 8th March, 1969, and a copy of the petitioner's show cause petition has been given as Annexure

(3.) IN reply, the learned counsel appearing for the State Board of Technical Education, Bihar, has referred to the counter affidavit filed in this case, and, has relied upon Annexures A, B and C appended thereto, Ann. A is a copy of the report made by the Head Examiner and had stated that from the answer books of the students, including the petitioner of this case, it had appeared that unfair means had been adopted by a large section of students of Gaya, Patna and Purnea centres. The relevant portion may be quoted from this annexure. It was mentioned that: "These are the cases where the language of the answers tally word by word, correct results have been reached though the steps are wrong and irrelevant and similar mistakes have been made....." Annexure B, a copy of the report made by the Moderation Board, stated that the explanations given by the candidates concerned in respect of the allegation of adoption of unfair means by them had been examined by the Board of Moderators and the findings of the Board were being sent to the Examination Board. This annexure also stated that the explanation given by the petitioner, amongst others, was unsatisfactory and the adoption of unfair means had been established. Annexure C is the copy of the order of the Examination Board holding that having considered the recommendations of the moderation board the petitioner should not be allowed to appear at any examination prior to 1969 annual examination.