BADRI NARAYAN JHA Vs. STATE BOARD OF TECHNICAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These applications have, been heard together. Petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 1111 of 1968 are candidates who appeared at the 1968 final examination of Diploma in Engineering, and the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 1189 of 1968 are candidates who appeared at the 1967 supplementary examination of Diploma in Engineering, whereas among the petitioners in C. W.J.C. No. 1190 of 1968, some appeared at the 1968 annual examination and some at the 1967 Supplementary Examination of Diploma in Engineering. But there is a common point involved in all these applications to the effect that all of them received intimation, given to them by the State Board of Technical Education, Bihar, which conducts these examinations, that they were deemed to have failed at the examinations and, further, that they were debarred from taking any examination upto the supplementary examination of 1969, as they were found to have adopted unfair means at the aforesaid examinations at which they appeared, It may be stated that the State Board of Technical Education follows the rules of the Patna University in the matter of conducting these examination in Engineering.

(2.) The grievance made on behalf of the petitioners is that the order holding the petitioners to have failed at the examinations and also depriving them to take other examinations in 1969 was passed behind their back. They took their examinations in the normal course and expected to pass at these examination. When they received communication from the State Board of Technical Education as aforesaid they felt surprised as to how it happened, but the State Board insisted on treating them as having adopted unfair means at the examinations without giving them an opportunity to explain that they could not be charged with having adopted unfair means at the examinations. It is contended by Mr. J.N.P. Verma on their behalf that the course adopted by the State Board is not in consonance with the decision of the Supreme Court in Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. v. Ghanshyam Das Gupta 1962 A.L.J. 776 and that of this Court in Ajit Singh v. Ranchi University . In both the cases examinees appeared at certain examination conducted by the Board of Examination (as in the case of Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P.) and that conducted by the Ranchi University (in Ajit Singh's case). The view taken is that no examinee can be punished by way of depriving him to take examination on account of alleged unfair means being adopted by the examinee concerned at an examination . conducted by the constituted authority, unless an opportunity is given to him to explain the circumstances and of being heard in his defence. In view of these two decisions, it must be held that the State Board of Technical Education, in the present case, was in error.

(3.) Mr. K.P. Varma, appearing for the State Board has contended that the cases of these petitioners were examined by competent persons who looked into the answer books of the petitioners. That may be so; nevertheless, the examinees stand on a technically strong ground and it is desirable that they should be given a chance to explain that they did not adopt unfair means at the above examinations. Mr. J. N. P. Verma contends that his point is not that they failed at the examination by the examination of answer books in proper course and even then they wanted some kind of opportunity to explain that they did not fail, but this is a case where the petitioners were charged with the adoption of unfair means and thus they are entitled to the privilege of having their point of view explained to the authorities so that after proper hearing necessary orders might be passed. Mr. K.P. Verma for the State has drawn our attention to Rule 17 of the General Rules (Part II) for Diploma Engineering Examinations, which makes provision for enquiry into the correctness of the results in any subject or subjects at the Board Examination. That rule, however, cannot be held to be applicable to the present case inasmuch as it is confined to a case where the examinee whose result has been published, desires to have a re -examination or revision of the answer books to detect any error through oversight, either in adding up the marks or otherwise. Therefore, the case of the petitioners cannot be held to be governed by Rule 17.