SHRI MAHAMAYA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-school seeks a writ of certiorari to set aside/quash the order dated 11.07.2008 (Annexure P/1) whereby the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination, 2008 was cancelled. Consequently, the result thereof were withheld, and the order dated 11.07.2008 (Annexure P/2), whereby the High Court Certificate Examination, 2008 was also cancelled, on account of mass copying.

(2.) THE indisputable facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner-school is run by Shri Mahamaya Shikshan Samiti, Katgi, Raipur, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1973. THE High School Certificate Examination of the students studying in the petitioner-school was held on 01.03.2008 to 24.03.2008, and for students of Higher Secondary School i.e., Class XIIth, the examination was held on 29.02.2002 to 25.03.2008. THE Government High School Nagda was the examination centre for the students of class Xth and XIIth. Thus, the petitioner-school has no responsibility to conduct the examination. In the inspection notes submitted by various inspection teams (Annexure P/8), it was found that there was no mass copying and the examinations were conducted in a satisfactory manner. THE results of class Xth and XIIth were declared in the last week of May, 2008. But the results of the students studying in the petitioner-school were withheld by impugned memos dated 11.07.2008 (Annexure P/1 and P/2). It was held that pursuant to the decision of the Examination and the Results Committee, held on 25.06.2008, mass copying was reported and found, therefore, the results were withheld. Shri Manish Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that without there being any investigation report to the effect that there was mass copying or irregularity in the conduct of examinations, the respondent authorities, i.e., the respondent No. 2 and 3 have taken decision to cancel the examination of High School and Higher Secondary Certification Examination, 2008, without any basis. Even otherwise, the result of the similarly situated candidates appearing in the High School and Higher Secondary School Certificate examination were published in May, 2008. THE decision of the Examination and the Results Committee was taken subsequently on 25.06.2008. It appears that without any finding or decision, the results of the students studying in the petitioner-school were withheld arbitrarily. Even if there was a mass copying, opportunity of hearing ought to have been provided to the candidates as well as to the petitioner-school, who have been prejudiced by cancellation of the entire examination. Shri Sharma further submits that the documents filed along with the application for taking documents on record indicate that there was copying in cases of some students only, but there was no mass copying. Thus, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari, as aforestated. Per contra, Shri R.S. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 and 3/Board, would submit that a complaint was made on 05.03.2008 (Annexure R/1) to the respondents alleging that there was mass cheating/copying in the examination centre. THE respondent No. 2 and 3 have, thereafter, conducted a detailed enquiry and on finding that there was mass copying, the Examination and the Results committee decided to cancel the above-stated examinations in its meeting held on 25.06.2008 (Annexure R/2). THE respondent No. 2 and 3 have filed some more documents (Annexure D/1 to D/12), including that the answer sheets were common, even the same was done in the same hand-writing. In some of the answer sheets, answers were given in such a manner as to indicate that facilities were provided by the examination centre itself to have mass copying. Thus, the decision of the respondent No. 2 and 3 is just and proper. Having heard rival contentions of the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it appears that mass copying has been found in most of the subjects. On perusal of the documents (Annexure D/1 to D/12) wherein reports have been submitted subject-wise, there is no doubt that the allegation of finding of mass copying by the respondent No. 2 and 3 is based on sufficient materials. THE contention that the same is based on conjectures and guess-work, to harm the interest of the petitioner-school, is not tenable. It cannot be said that the respondent No. 2 and 3 have acted in an arbitrary and whimsical manner. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire exercise and consequently the orders dated 11.07.2008 (Annexure P/1 and P/2) deserves to be quashed as the basic principle of natural justice i.e., audi alteram partem has not been followed. Neither the examination centre, school nor the students have been afforded an opportunity of hearing before the impugned adverse orders were passed, is not tenable in the facts of the instant case. In case of mass copying, principle of natural justice need not be strictly complied with. THE Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal, M.P. Vs. Abhilash Shiksha Prasar Samiti and others, : (1998) 9 SCC 236 observed as under: