Ganga Ram and Others vs U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and Another

A.K. Yog, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned standing counsel and perused the record including the original answer script of the candidates/petitioners.

The petitioners Ganga Ram, Narendra Singh and Omvir Singh respectively filed the present writ petition under Article 226, Constitution of India, praying for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order of cancelling their High School result vide order dated 7.2.1997 and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents/U. P. Board authorities and the Principal of the Institution to declare their High School Examination, 1996, result.

By means of the earlier order passed by this Court, U. P. Board was required to produce original scripts in question.

It appears that the result of the petitioners was not declared on the ground of mass copying or, in other words, on suspicion of copying/ use of unfair means by certain candidates in the Examination Hall.

Without going into the other details of the case, this petition can be decided merely by perusing the answer scripts since they have been produced. The Court perused the answer scripts of the petitioners with the help of the learned counsel for the respective parties. A perusal of answer sheets clearly discloses that similarity of answer is the only ground for generating suspicion (so-called suspicion) on the part of the respondent authorities to come to the conclusion of use of unfair means/mass copying.

At the outset, it may be stated that the ground of mass copying cannot be sustained in''asmuch as in a case of mass copying, entire examination is to be cancelled and fresh examination is required to be directed as otherwise cancellation of examination of certain candidates only amounts to casting stigma and imposing punishment. Otherwise also, merely similarity of answers cannot be a good ground for cancelling examination or coming to the conclusion of using unfair means by a candidate as has been held in the following cases :

(1) Brij Bhushan Lal Parduman Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax , Haryana Himachal Pradesh and New Delhi III, .

(2) Arun Kumar Singh v. University of Gorakhpur and Anr. 1985 UPLBEC 829.

(3) Rajesh Kumar and Another Vs. Institute of Engineers (India),

(4) Regional Secretary Board of Secondary Education, Regional Office, Varanasi and another Vs. Ajay Singh and another, .

Sri Y.D. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners also, in support of the above, has placed reliance upon unreported judgment of learned single Judge in the case of Amar Pal Singh and Ors. v. Uttar Pradesh Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Area Office, Meerut and Anr., Writ Petition No. 12189 of 1998, decided on 2.12.1999. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this writ petition was also against same order of cancellation of result with respect to other candidates of the same Institution. The said writ petition was allowed and the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 1, dated 7.2.1997 was quashed (impliedly with respect to the petitioners in that writ petition).

In view of the above, there is no justification for not quashing the impugned order dated 7.2.1997 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) with respect to the present petitioners.

The writ petition stands allowed. The impugned order dated 7.2.1997 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. The respondents authorities are hereby directed to declare the result of the petitioners forthwith but in no case beyond six weeks of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs.