AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.—The Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi (CBSE), through its Chairman and Regional Officer of the Regional Office of the CBSE, at Patna, are the appellants, in the present appeals preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of this Court, challenging a common order, dated 31.07.2015, passed in a batch of writ applications made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
By the order under appeal, learned single Judge has directed the CBSE to declare the results of Class X examination with respect to 176 students, who had appeared in the examination as students of A.V.N. School, Patna, but whose results had been withheld by the CBSE after having found gross irregularities in their enrolment and also commission of forgery in issuance of Admit Cards, in their favour, for the said examination.
Let us take note of the materials facts, which gave rise to the present appeals.
As many as 134 students of A.V.N. School (hereinafter referred to as the ''School'') filed applications, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the decision of the CBSE communicated through a letter, dated 20.06.2015, addressed to the Principal of the said School, whereby it had rejected a representation for publication of the results of the students, who had appeared in Class Xth Examination in the Sessions 2014-15, held in the month of March, 2015, and whose results had been kept withheld. These applications gave rise to CWJC No. 9380 of 2014 (38 students), CWJC No. 9633 of 2015 (four students) and CWJC No. 10213 of 2015 (92 students). The School, too, filed a separate writ application, which gave rise to CWJC No. 9605 of 2015 and similar relief of quashing the communication, dated 19.06.2015, and consequential direction to the CBSE to publish the results of 176 registered students of Class Xth, had been sought for.
All the four writ applications were heard together by a learned single Judge of this Court, points for adjudication being common in all the cases, and, by a common order, dated 31.07.2015, which is under appeal, the learned single Judge directed the CBSE to declare the results of 176 students of the School.
Aggrieved by the said order, dated 31.07.2015, the present four appeals have been preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of this Court by the CBSE. LPA No. 1641 of 2015 arises out of CWJC No. 9605 of 2015, LPA No. 1643 of 2015 arises out of CWJC No. 10213 of 2015, LPA No. 1644 of 2015 arises out of CWJC No. 9633 of 2015 and LPA No. 1645 of 2015 arises out of CWJC No. 9380 of 2015.
Before adverting to the rival contentions raised in these appeals and the writ petitions on behalf of the parties, we may point out certain fundamental facts, which are not in dispute.
The School is run and managed by Parwati Educational and Welfare Trust and was affiliated to the CBSE. Upon receiving some complaints as regard affairs and functioning of the School, the CBSE had constituted a Committee to verify the allegations made therein. When the said Committee found the allegations to be correct and irregularities existing in the School, the School Management was served with a show cause notice by the CBSE. The CBSE decided to hold a surprise inspection of the School to ascertain certain facts and the inspection was accordingly carried out.
Having found serious deficiencies, the CBSE served another show cause notice on the School Management, asking them to explain as to why the affiliation granted to the School be not cancelled. The School Management responded to the show cause notice and, upon consideration of the response, the CBSE communicated its decision, vide its letter No. CBSE/AFF/330237/2013/577836, dated 29.06.2013, to the School withdrawing the provisional affiliation granted to it for Secondary and Senior Secondary Levels. However, the CBSE, later on, decided to allow the existing students of Class IX, X, XI and XII of the School to appear in the Boards'' Class X and Class XII examinations to be held in the year 2014-15 after ascertaining their eligibility condition by the Regional Officer, CBSE, Patna, as per examination bye-laws. The said communication, dated 29.06.2013, is Annexure A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the CBSE, in writ proceedings.
It is also not in dispute that the CBSE had requested the Principal of the School through letter, dated 03.10.2013, to provide original records, so as to ascertain the eligibility of the students of the School, who could be allowed to appear in the Board''s examination to be held in the year 2014-15. Reminders were sent by the CBSE to the School Management through letters, dated 20.01.2014, 20.06.2014 and 21.03.2014, asking them to furnish the records for due verification, but they failed to furnish the records.
The School is said to have informed the CBSE, through its letter, dated 25.07.2014, that it would be submitting the documents by 08.08.2014. The School did not, however, submit any records with respect to the students of Class X. It was only on 04.03.2015 that the School submitted the records of students of Class X for enabling the CBSE to determine their eligibility. Examinations were to commence from 11.03.2015. The Committee verified the records and found certain discrepancies, which were communicated to the School through letter, dated 14.03.2015, with a direction to remove the discrepancies and submit the records afresh, else the candidates would not be permitted to sit in the examination.
It is the case of the CBSE that as the School did not submit the records as required by the letter, dated 14.03.2015, no permission was granted to the 388 students of Class X to appear in the "School Based Examination of AISSE, 2015". Consequently, no Admit Card was issued by the CBSE to the students for the said examination. It is the case of the CBSE that the School issued fake Admit Cards to the students and conducted "School Based Examination" despite the fact that it was not allowed to conduct such examination by the CBSE. According to the CBSE, since the Admits Cards were shown to have been issued under the signature of Controller of Examination fraudulently, the CBSE lodged a First Information Report against the against the functionaries of the School Management, which came to be registered as Rajiv Nagar Police Station Case No. 150 of 2015 under Sections 420/419/467/471/120B/197/198/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The results were declared by the CBSE; but as the results of the students of A.V.N. School were not declared, the Principal of the School wrote a letter, dated 29.05.2015, to the Regional Officer, Patna, of the CBSE making a request to declare the results of the students of A.V.N. School. In the said communication, dated 29.05.2015, the Principal mentioned that on account of delay in uploading of the Admit Cards, though the Board had issued Roll Numbers to the students on Website, Admit Cards were prepared by the School and issued to the students to appear in Class X AISSE, 2015. The relevant portion of the said communication is being extracted hereinbelow:-
"This is to state that on account of delay in uploading of Admit Cards, though the Board has given the Roll Numbers to the students on the Website with each detail, Admit Cards were prepared by the undersigned School and issued among the students for appearing in Class X AISSE-215 and on query from the Regional Office and different Schools besides Private School Association, Bihar, Patna the undersigned were asked to do needful and accordingly the students appeared in the Class-X AISSE-215, but the marks could not be shown in the results leading to confusion and chaos among the students and guardians respectively, despite uploading of marks of Term I and Term II of Class IX and Class X."
The CBSE, on scrutinizing the records, decided to publish the results of 212 candidates out of 388 inasmuch as their records pertaining to their admission in the school etc., according to the CBSE, were acceptable. The CBSE, however, decided to withhold the results of 176 students inasmuch as a Committee was constituted by the CBSE for verification of original records and certain irregularities were detected by the Committee. On the basis of the findings arrived at by the Committee, it was decided by the CBSE not to publish their results. The details of such irregularities are mentioned in the report of the Committee, which has been brought on record by way of Annexure-G to the counter affidavit filed in the writ proceeding which were of the following nature:-
"1. Particulars found not tallied with LOC & AWR i.e. Candidate Name/Father Name/Mother Name. Details of such students at Sr. No. of LOC as given below. (31 candidates)
The details of Sl. No. in LOC as given below not found in AWR. (29 candidates).
The DOB in respect of Sl. No. of LOC is incorrect/overwriting/not found in School Records. (71)
Date of granting admission on admission form is not mentioned by the Principal, also in most of the cases date of admission not mentioned in AWR.
Particulars which are given in LOC not tallied with Admission Form/Transfer Certificate in respect of Sl. No. of LOC as follows. (17).
In Sl. No. 00115 & 00116 and at Sl. No. 00128 & 00129 the date of birth mentioned in the case of own brother and sister born from single mother seems improbable. (4)
Sl. No. 00354 to 00387 of LOC has been admitted directly or transfer for which the school was not empowered. (34)"
On the grounds aforesaid, the CBSE decided not to publish the results of the said 176 candidates. We may point out that LOC is abbreviated form of ''List of Candidates'', whereas AWR for ''Admission Withdrawal Register''.
The students of the School, whose results were withheld or not published, approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the above mentioned circumstances, seeking directions to the CBSE to publish their results of Class X Examination.
Thirty eight petitioners of CWJC No. 9380 of 2015 asserted that they had appeared, passed Class IX examination held in the month of March, 2014, and were promoted to Class X in the said A.V.N. School. They had, accordingly, filled up application forms for Class X examination scheduled to commence from 11.03.2015. They further contended that it was only after the matter was taken up by the Bihar Public School and Children Welfare Association that the CBSE succumbed to the demand of publication of the results of the students of the School, but only in respect of 212 students of the School and withheld, arbitrarily the results of the rest 176 candidates without any valid and proper reason.
As an example, the petitioners of CWJC No. 9380 of 2015 have brought on record the Admit Card of Puja Kumari, who is one of the petitioners in CWJC No. 9380 of 2015. We must pause here to point out that Ms. Puja Kumari''s Admit Card bears the signature of not only the Principal of the School, but also of the signature of the Controller of Examination, CBSE.
It is quite intriguing as to how the said Admission Card could be issued by the Principal of the School, when, according to his own admission, Admits Cards of the students of the School were not uploaded by the CBSE on its Website, which is evident from a communication, dated 20.05.2015, made by none other than the Principal of the School himself, relevant portion of which has been extracted hereinabove. Neither the Principal of the School nor the writ petitioners have offered any explanation as to how the Admit Card, in the circumstances as mentioned above, came to be issued by the School and how Puja Kumari, the writ petitioner, came to possess the said Admit Card.
The petitioners of CWJC No. 9633 of 2015 (four in number) took a plea that their results have been arbitrarily withheld for minor discrepancies. As far as writ petitioner No. 1 of the said case is concerned, it was her plea that in the list of candidates, her father''s name had, inadvertently, been mentioned as ''Rashid Akhtar'', though her father''s name has been mentioned, in the Admission Withdrawal Register, as ''Rashid Akhtar Khan''. As far as other petitioners are concerned, the discrepancies, as regard their dates of birth, were described to be inadvertent. According to the petitioners, they did not mention, in the Admission Form, correct dates of birth inadvertently without verifying their respective dates of birth from the entries made in the Admission Form/Transfer Certificate. It was their case that their fees and forms having been accepted by the CBSE, their results ought not to have been withheld.
The pleadings in CWJC No. 10213 of 2015 and the grounds taken for seeking reliefs are almost similar to those of CWJC No. 9380 of 2015.
The fourth writ application was filed by the A.V.N. School itself being CWJC No. 9605 of 2015. It has been alleged in paragraph 15 of the said writ application that when the Management of the School failed to fulfill the illegal demands of Regional Officer (respondent No. 3 of the said writ petition) through Controller of Examination, respondent No. 2 issued the communication, dated 19.06.2015, and illegally withheld the publication of the results of the said 176 candidates.
Learned single Judge, by the order under appeal, took the view that it was not permissible for the CBSE to declare results of only 212 candidates and withhold the results of 176 others, though all had appeared in the examination through the said School, which was part of the same exercise, holding that since 176 students were similarly situated as the said 212 candidates, whose results were published, results of the 176 candidates could not have been withheld.
We have heard Mr. Shashi Anugrah Narain, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants in all the cases, Mr. Y.G. Giri, learned Senior Counsel, and Mr. Manik Vedsen, learned counsel, appearing for the Students/respondents. We have also heard Mr. Shailesh Kumar, learned Counsel, representing the School.
Mr. Narain, learned Senior counsel, has submitted that no permission was granted to the students of Class X of A.V.N. School to appear in the ''School Based Examination of AISSE-2015'' and no Admit Cards were issued; rather, Admit Cards of the students of the School were blocked by the CBSE so that no one could download the Admit Card. This had to be done, according to Mr. Narain, learned Senior Counsel, because of the fact that the A.V.N. School had failed to submit the required records to the CBSE for verification. He has further contended that while the results of AISSE were declared on the Website of the CBSE on 08.05.2015, the results of all the students of A.V.N. School were withheld. He has further submitted that it was a matter for shock and surprise for the officials of the CBSE, when they received the communication, dated 29.05.2015, from the School making a request to publish the result of 388 students of the School, wherein it was mentioned that Admits Cards were prepared by the A.V.N. School itself and distributed amongst 388 students. Issuance of the Admit Card by the School to the examinees in such a manner as indicated hereinbefore, submits Mr. Narain, learned Senior Counsel, was wholly unauthorized. Mr. Narayan, learned Senior Counsel, has accordingly submitted that the Management of the A.V.N. School allowed the students to appear at the ''School Based Examination'' on the basis of fake Admit Cards. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the CBSE, that upon verification of the documents and other materials, the CBSE decided to publish the results of 212 students out of 388 on 04.06.2015, who were found to be eligible.
It is also the submission of Mr. Narain, learned Senior Counsel, that in a ''School Based Examination'', answer-sheets are maintained by the concerned Schools and evaluated in the School itself and that the results of the candidates are published on the basis of the marks furnished by the School. Referring to Annexure-F to the counter affidavit filed in CWJC No. 9380 of 2015, Mr. Narain, learned Senior Counsel, has submitted that upon being asked by the CBSE to produce the answer-sheets, the Manager of the School informed that several records had been destroyed by a mob, on 02.06.2015, on account of non-publication of results. He has submitted that CBSE, in such circumstances, was right and justified in its decision not to publish the results of 176 candidates on noticing several discrepancies in their records as mentioned in the counter affidavit coupled with the fact that even answer-sheets were not made available by the School to the CBSE. In substance, what Mr. Narain, learned Senior Counsel, has pointed out is that fake Admit Cards were issued by the School and not only that, their answer scripts were also not made available to the CBSE by the School for verification coupled with the fact that the CBSE noticed several discrepancies, including the discrepancies in the dates of birth of the students in the records maintained by the School and also in their admission forms.
In response to the query made by this Court as to where are the answer-sheets of the 176 candidates, whose results have not been published, Mr. Shailesh Kumar, learned counsel representing the School, has submitted before this Court that the records have been destroyed by a mob agitating on account of non-publication of results with regard to the same occurrence an First Information Report is registered.
Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent/Students, has submitted that it would be highly unjust and unfair to the young students if their results are not allowed to be published in the facts and circumstances of the present case. He has submitted that the examinees cannot be blamed for any nature of discrepancies as may have been pointed out by the CBSE in the proceedings before this Court. He has submitted that the students were admitted in the School in Class IXth, when the School was affiliated to the CBSE, and the CBSE, while cancelling affiliation of the School, had made it clear that the students, studying in Class IX, X, XI and XII, would be entitled to appear in the examinations to be held in the year 2014-15.
Mr. Giri has further submitted that cases of these 176 candidates cannot be distinguished from the other 212 candidates, whose results have been published by the CBSE. He further submits that the grounds, which have been taken by the CBSE to deny publication of the results of these 176 candidates, are equally applicable to the 212 candidates, whose results have been published. It has, accordingly, been contended that the action of the CBSE is discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Be that as it may, the fate of the candidates/examinees will depend upon the manner in which they were allowed to appear in the examination at the instance of the school. It has not been disputed that the CBSE had been requesting the School to furnish the records i.e. list of Candidates and Admission Withdrawal Register, in order to ascertain the eligibility and bona fide of the candidates, who were allowed by the School to take Class X examination. The CBSE has asserted in its counter affidavit that it had been repeatedly demanding original School records, transfer certificates, progress report, Admission Withdrawal Registration Number/Registration Card, Admission Form and Fee details of the students of Class IX and XI, who were going to appear in the main examination in the year 2015, but the School did not furnish the required information well-in-advance and a few days before the Class X examination was to commence in March, 2015, the School submitted the records, on 04.03.2015, to the CBSE. There is specific averment, in paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit, that since discrepancies were detected in the records, no permission was granted to 388 students of Class X of the School to appear in the "School Based Examination of AISSE-2015" and, therefore, no Admit Card was issued. This specific statement has not been denied by the School nor has any material been brought on record to counter this stand. These records are essential to ensure that only such students, who had been duly admitted in a School having affiliation of the CBSE, were the ones, who had appeared in the concerned examination. It is to stop the practice of students pursuing their studies in such schools, which are not affiliated to the CBSE and, then, use the name of another school, having affiliation of the CBSE, to appear in the examination conducted by the CBSE. The School miserably failed to establish its bona fide before the CBSE that it had allowed only such candidates to appear in Class X examination, who were duly admitted in the School and pursued their course, in the School, in terms of the bye-laws of the CBSE.
Our attention has also been drawn to Annexure-K to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the CBSE, which is a legal notice on behalf of one Ayush to the Principal of "Scholar Abode School" Shankar Colony, Ashiyana Digha Road, Patna, Principal of A.V.N. School, Patna, and officials of the CBSE. It is mentioned therein that said Ayush had been student of Scholar Abode School affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education. According to him, he had studied in the said Scholar Abode School. However, when Admission Card was issued for appearing in Class X examination, signature and stamp of Principal of A.V.N. School was there on his Admission Card. It was, in these circumstances, that a grievance, against non-publication of his result, was made by Ayush and he demanded to know as to how the name of said Ayush stood transferred to the School.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, one cannot. but seriously deprecate the manner in which the Management of the School conducted its affairs in holding Class-X examination, which we hereby do. The Management of the School has completely failed to satisfy this Court that their failure to furnish to the CBSE the relevant records, which were demanded by the CBSE, was bona fide. Mere allegation that the officials of the CBSE had been making illegitimate demands for publication of their results, made on behalf of the School, is not enough. We are wholly dissatisfied with the affairs of the School in holding the examination in question. The stand, taken on behalf of the School, that even the answer-sheets of the concerned examination have been destroyed constitutes strong suspicion as regards the conduct of the Management of the School, which, in our opinion, would require indepth investigation.
Having found no dispute over existence of the discrepancies, as pointed out by the CBSE, with respect to the 176 candidates coupled with the fact that even answer sheets are said to have been destroyed, we find it difficult to hold that in these circumstances, a direction could have been issued to the CBSE to publish the results of such candidates, in such apologizing circumstances.
These appeals are, therefore, allowed and the order under appeal, dated 31.07.2015, is hereby set aside.
CWJC No. 9380 of 2015, CWJC No. 9605 of 2015, CWJC No. 9633 of 2015 & CWJC No. 10213 of 2015 stand dismissed.
We apprehend serious foul play at some level, which has the effect of adversely affecting the interest of young students. We, therefore, order the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, to enquire into the matter, lodge First Information Report and bring the investigation to its logical conclusion in accordance with law and keep informing this Court the progress made in the investigation periodically at the end of every three months.
Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, C.G.O. Complex, New Delhi, forthwith.
I.A. Ansari, Actg. C.J.
While completely agreeing with the conclusions reached and the directions given by my esteemed brother, Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J., I deem it necessary to add a few words.
What crystallizes from the discussion, held as a whole, is that the CBSE had blocked the website and stopped the School from issuing Admit Cards to the examinees concerned. In such circumstances, issuance of the forged Admit Card by the School was wholly illegal and ought not to be encouraged.
In the face of the facts that Admit Cards had been blocked by the CBSE and no Admit Card could have been given by the School to any of the examinees and since none of the examinees could have appeared in the examinations aforementioned, the act of publishing of the results of some of such examinees by the CBSE was wholly wrong and ought not have been done by the CBSE. In the name of removing discrimination, CBSE cannot be directed to perpetuate the wrong that it had committed. No direction can, therefore, be given to the CBSE to publish the results of the remaining examinees.