Central Board of Secondary Education and Others vs Miss Suchitra Purkait

D.H. Nasir, J.—The main question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether in a situation where any individual out of certain examinees who are alleged to have indulged into mass-copying in an examination could be picked out and exonerated from the allegation of mass-copying by relying upon certain claims advanced by such individuals that his/her school record and the method and manner in which the answer sheets were written and whether a satisfaction could be recorded that the action of the respondents cancelling the performance of that individual in Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) was illegal and erroneous.

It is well settled that in case of mass-copying an individual or two or even more cannot be set apart by holding that they were not involved in mass-copying. The father of the writ petitioner filed an additional affidavit dated 16-2-1997 alleging that, not 19 students as stated by the CBSE, but 54 students were accommodated in one examination hall for the X class CBSE examinations 1996. He further states that he personally enquired in Infant Jesus School and Nellore Central School, Nellore about the same, and he was informed that all the 25 students from the respondent''s school namely Infant Jesus School, Nellore with Hall Ticket Nos.4106972 to 4106995 and 29 students from Little Angels High School. Gudur with Hall Ticket Nos.4106996 to 4107025 were accommodated in one examination hall in the premises of Nellore Central School, Nellore for appearing for the X class CBSE examinations, 1996 from 6-3-1996 to 19-3-1996. The writ petitioner''s father, however, docs not disclose the name of the person from whom he collected these particulars. He also did not cause the affidavit of the alleged person who gave him this information to be filed.

G. Balasnrbramanian, Joint Secretary, Central Board of Secondary Education, Regional Office, Chennai filed a reply affidavit to the aforesaid additional affidavit. While admitting that the results of 19 candidates had been cancelled under unfair means case based on the reports of the Examiner/Head Examiner of the Board, which was brought to the notice of the Board for alleged mass-copying, stated in his affidavit that Nellore Central School was fixed as Examination Centre for conducting AISSE'' 96 and the number of candidates who appeared for the centre were as follows :

Infant Jesus 25 Nos. 4106971 4106995 School

Nellore Central 42 Nos. 41069294106970 School

Little Angles 30Nos. 41069964107025 School

Hence, according to the deponent, the total number of candidates who appeared from the centre in AISSEE were 97 and that they were allotted different rooms in the centre. He denies that 54 candidates of Infant Jesus School, Little Angels School were accommodated in one examination hall in Nellore Central School. He also denies that all candidates were accommodated in one single room and submits that these 97 candidates were allotted five different rooms as shown below :

Room I 4106929to 4106950 22

Room II 4106951 to 4106970 20

Room III 4106971 to 4106992 22

Room IV 4106993 to 4107003 11

Room V 4107004 to 4107025 22

He further states that these 19 candidates whose results were cancelled as unfair means case were accommodated in Room No.III and IV, and that these 19 candidates who were present in two rooms were reported to have indulged into mass-copying and hence, they were booked under unfair means and their results have been cancelled.

In view of the above particulars stated by the Joint Secretary of the CBSE, we are not inclined to accept the allegations made by the writ petitioner''s father that 54 students were made to sit in one examination hall

As far as the merits of the case are concerned, the Joint Secretary, CBSE, in paragraph 8 of his original affidavit stated that according to the available information certain papers with solved answers was brought to the examination hall by some other person which was circulated amongst some of the candidates, and that the petitioner had copied in collusion with others and adopted unfair means, which had been established on scrutiny of answer books. The Board did not withhold the result of this candidate only, but also of those candidates bearing Roll No.4106982 to 4107000 for having adopted unfair means in Maths. The writ petitioner had been given reasonable opportunity to explain her case before the unfair Means Committee.

The Assistant Secretary, CBSE on his behalf and on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2 also corroborated that the Joint Secretary issued a note to the Assistant Secretary, CBSE, Regional Officer, Madras to call all the candidates who were alleged to have indulged into unfair means before the Unfair Means Committee on 17-7-1996 in order to give fair chance to the students to explain their stand, and that as per the report of the Sub Committee, the candidates bearing Roll No.4106982 to 4107000 were found to have indulged into mass-copying by obtaining the solved answer sheets and also by exchange of answer sheets between candidates.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee for dealing with unfair means cases appear at page 39 of the material papers produced with the present appeal. It is recorded in the said Minutes that the Committee dealt at length with the alleged cases of mass-copying respect of Roll Nos.4106982 to 4107000. It is further recorded in the Minutes that a few students admitted before the Committee that an individual of the school where the examination was conducted brought a written paper which contained solved answers for six to seven problems. One such admission appears at page No.53, the name of the student is recorded as Vaka Venkata Narasimha Reddy. He states as follows in his admission :

"During mathematics examination held on 19-3-1996,1 copied answers from a student sitting by my side. I also admit that a clerk (or) attender from Ncllore Central School brought a sheet of paper with solved answers the paper contained problems of geometry and ..... problem were written both sides on the paper it was circulated among students. The invigilator did not take notice of this. I will not commit this mistake in future and I request you to excuse me."

Another student D. Pradeep admits as follows :

"My name is D. Pradeep. I have written my S.S.C. public examinations (C.B.S.E) 1996 while writing my examination some unknown person has come to my room and distributed some answers (chits) for some of the selected persons and I have copied 2 problems from my neighbour."

Ch. Raghu, in his admission dated 17-7-96 stated as follows :

"We got the answers in a white paper. They were written on both sides of the white paper. One or peon whoever it is brought us and ..... If they wouldn''t have given I would have written what I knew. And I am sure that I would have passed in End class atleast. Whatever I have written is true and I admit my mistake. Waiting for your letter. Sorry.

One Rajeev admits as under :

"At the time I was about to fold up my paper I was supplied a chit by the person sitting next to me. I took the chit and copied 6 to 7 questions. The invigilator knew that I was copying but they did not take any notice."

One K. Sridhar writes as under :

"My name is K. Sridhar Hall Ticket number 4106989. I am sorry I have copied from the sheet which was circulated. The invigilator know that we were copying. I am sorry for the mistake.''''

At page No.59 of the material papers, the minutes of the meeting of the results Committee held on 6th August, 1996 at 11:00 a.m. in the CBSE have been extracted. The meeting was held to consider the recommendations of the Sub-Committees constituted by the results Committee to deal with the unfair means cases pertaining to 1996 examinations of the Board. In the body of the minutes it is recorded that

"The Committee examined the recommendations made by the Sub-Committees constituted by the Chairman for dealing with the unfair means cases pertaining to 1996 examinations.

Resolved that the recommendations of the Sub-Committees be approved.

The meeting then ended with a vote of thanks to the Chair."

Earlier the Committee dealing with unfair means cases of AISSE and AISSCE met on 17-7-96 and the minutes of the said meeting are produced at pagcNo.49 of the material papers. In the second paragraph of the minutes it is stated as under :

"The Committee dealt at length with the alleged cases of mass copying in respect of Roll Nos.4106982 to 4107000. It was observed that a few students admitted before the Committee that an individual of the school where the examination was conducted brought a written paper which contained solved answers for six to seven problems."

It is further recorded in paragraph 2 under "Observations" that in respect of the above roll numbers in the subject of Mathematics, it seemed to have occurred by furnishing a solved answer sheet and by exchange of answer sheets between the candidates. The Committee recommended the cancellation of the result of the above candidates for the current academic year. The Committee further felt that necessary action must be initiated against the Centre Superintendent and the Invigilators who have directly or indirectly been responsible for the act of copying by the students.

Apart from the above factual aspects emerging from the material papers produced by the appellant, it further appears that Rule 36.2 of the Examination Bye-laws of the Board reads as under :

"If after the examination it is found that a candidate has copied the answer either of some candidates or from any other source, he/she shall be treated to have used the unfair means and shall be liable to be punished under the Rules."

Keeping all the above aspects of the case in view, we arc of the opinion that the Court''s opinion cannot be substituted in place of the opinion and findings recorded by the Unfair Means Committee and accepted by the Sub-Committee of the Board. The unfair means Committee had the advantage not only of hearing the concerned students, but even the answer papers written by them, which according to them were all couched in similar language. The entire case before us is a case based on disputed facts and, therefore, it is not in order on that account also for the High Court to sit in judgment on the findings of facts recorded by the Unfair Means Committee under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Apart from the disputed facts, one more fact appears to have weighed on the mind of the learned single Judge that the scholastic record of the candidate he found that the petitioner did not indulge in copying and recorded a satisfaction that the action of the respondents cancelling the performance of the petitioner in CBSE examination was illegal and erroneous. We are afraid, such a view cannot be taken by substituting the Court''s opinion in place of the opinion expressed by the Sub-Committee constituted by the results Committee comprising of leading academicians, who had the advantage of closely examining the answer sheets as well as interviewing the students facing the allegation of mass-copying. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.