AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.P. Mishra, J.—All the petitioners in the above writs have prayed to enforce and implement Annexure-1 wherein they have been shown to have passed their back papers in final degree back Science (+3) Examination, 2002. They have also prayed for non-applicability of Annexure-2 & 3. Since all the petitioners are students of the same college, this common order shall govern all the Writ Applications.
The case of the petitioners is that they were 1998 Admission Batch of +3 Science course in S.S.D. College of Science and Technology (Opp. Party No. 2). They appeared at pre-degree examination in 2000 and final degree examination in 2001. In the examination of 2001 Paper IV Botany, Paper IV Physics (Core-l) were cancelled and they appeared again in the year 2002 in those back papers which was held on 17.4.2002 in the college of Opp. Party No. 2. According to the adverment, they were declared pass on 19.6.2002 vide Annexure-l, but were not supplied with the marks either by the Utkal University- Opp. Party No. 1 or by the college-Opp. Party No. 2 though they have been shown as pass for which they approached the Writ Jurisdiction of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1027 of 2002. Thereafter, the college supplied their mark sheets showing their back papers to be blank i.e., without marks though they were declared pass under Annexure-1, in the meantime the petitioners were intimated to appear in the special pre-degree examination and special final degree examination to be held on 16.2.2003 under Annexures-2 & 3. According to the adverment, fail mark sheets supplied to them is incorrect for non-showing of their marks sheets supplied to them is incorrect for non-showing of their marks in the Physics and Botany Paper IV, IV-I and they have been deprived of the opportunity of higher studies for the subsequent fail result and therefore being compelled by the arbitrary action of University, they have filed the Writ Applications for the enforcement of their pass result (Annexure-l).
Opposite Party No. 1 has filed counter with the averment that the petitioners appeared to clear their back papers in Physics and Botany Paper IV in the final degree examination in the year 2002. Inadvertently, results were published on 19.6.2002 under Annexure-1 and the said result was withheld on 22.6.2002 under Annexure-D and in ordered to give the students an opportunity Annexure-3 was issued. According to the averment the University can very well withheld the pass published result under Statute 211 of the Orissa Universities First Statutes, (hereinafter called ''Statute''). According to the averment the mark sheers were received by one Bidyadhar Pradhan being authorized by the college of the petitioner on 19.9.2002 vide Annexure-A. The petitioners papers were scratched in 2001 on the report of the flying squad dt 23.7.2001 and 26.4.2001 final degree examination having their back papers in Physics and Botany. Again while appearing on 17.4.2002 in those back papers the squad visited the College and the Centre Superintendent reported vide Exts. B and C mentioning therein adoption of unfair means i.e., mass copy for which the result was Statute the matter was placed before a Special Conducting Board (Annexure-E) and finally the examination dt. 17.4.2002 of the petitioners was cancelled (Ext. F) and therefore, they are not entitled to may remedies prayed for.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners have raised the contention that no notice of mal-practice was issued as required under Statute 214 of the Statute. The result was withheld for any other reason which does not include mal-practice/mass-copy/unfair means and Ext. F, the order of cancellation does not relate to 1998 Batch. The petitioners have, therefore, prayed to allow the Writ Applications. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for Opp. Party No. 1 has contended that no notice was required in case of mass copy. Other reasons include mal practice/mass copy and adoption of unfair means. According to the Learned Counsel Ext. F very well relates to 1998 Batch as their results were withheld under Ext. D. Learned Counsel further submits that since the petitioners were very much in the examination hall of the college, they cannot be segregated from others as the mass copy or adoption of unfair means was in progress during the visit of the University squad on 17.4.2002 and has prayed to dismiss the Writ Applications.
We may observe that in the present era the students are resorting to the unfair means in the examination and are passing if it goes unnoticed resulting adversely to the society ultimately. The students succeeding in the examinations by resorting to unfair means are not able to build their own further in the public life consequently hampering the society as well as the country itself.
No doubt, a notice has to be issued to a student alleged to have adopted unfair means in examination according to Statute 214 of The Orissa Universities First Statutes, 1990. But in this case the contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted because of the settled position of law reported in the case of The Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Subhas Chandra Sinha and Others, . The relevant paragraph is quoted below :
"14. Reliance was placed upon Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad Vs. Ghanshyam Das Gupta and Others, to which we referred earlier. There the examination results of three candidates were cancelled, and this Court held that they should have received an opportunity of explaining their conduct. It was also said that even if the enquiry involved a large number of persons the committee should frame proper regulations for the conduct of such inquiries but not deny the opportunities. We do not think that case has any application. Surely it was not intended that where the examination as a whole was vitiated, say by leakage of papers or by destruction of some of the answer books or by discovery of unfair means practised on a vast scale that an enquiry would be made giving a chance to every one appearing at that examination to have his say. What the Court intended to lay down was that if any particular person was to be proceeded against, he must have a proper chance to defend himself and this did not obviate the necessity of giving and proceeded against was large. The Court was then not considering the right of an examining body to cancel its own examination was not properly conducted or that in the conduct of the examination the majority of the examinees had not conducted themselves as they should have. To make such decisions depend upon a full-fledged judicial enquiry would hold up the functioning of such autonomous bodies as Universities and School Board. While we do not wish to whittle down the requirements of natural justice and fair play in cases where such requirement may be said to rise, we do not want that this Court should be understood as having stated that an enquiry with a right to representation must always precede in every case, however different. The universities are responsible for their standards and the conduct of examinations. The essence of the examinations is that the worth of every person is appraised without any assistance from an outside source. If at a center the whole body of students receive assistance and managed to secure success in the neighborhood of 100% when others at other centers are successful only at an average of 50%, it is obvious that the university or the Board must be something in the matter. It cannot hold a detailed quash-judicial enquiry with a right to its conclusion that the examinations ought to be cancelled then academic standards require that the university''s appreciation of the problem must be respected. It would not do for the Court to say that you should have examined all the candidates or even their representatives with a view to ascertaining whether they had received assistance or not. To do this would encourage indiscipline if not also perjury."
We examined the file produced by the opposite parties relating to Annexures-B and C dt. 17.4.2002. The original report of the squad reveals that there was adoption of unfair mans. According to them in Col. 9 there was no semblance of examination. They also found students throwing materials through the window on the arrival of the squad and huge incriminating materials like books, printed (Micro Xerox) were found inside the examination hall with the students. Accordingly four members of the squad with the endorsement of the Center Superintendent (Opp. Party No. 2) reported the matter to the University about mass mal practice. Therefore, no individual notice need to be served on the petitioner in accordance with the Statute 214.
It is true the result was withheld vide Ext. D on 22.6.2002 according to Statute 211 (6) of the Statute which read as follows :
"(1) *** *** *** (2) *** *** *** (3) *** *** *** (4) *** *** *** (5) *** *** *** (6) Ordinarily the results shall be published within two months from the date of completion of the Examination :
Provided that for special reasons the Syndicate may relax this provision :
Provided further that the Syndicate may alter or cancel the results within a period of three months of the publication for reasons to be recorded."
According to the above, a result can be very well altered, cancelled within a period of three months of the publication for the reasons to be recorded. In the present case, provisional result (Annexure-1) was published on 19.6.2002 and just after three days i.e., 22.6.2002 the results were withheld. In Ext. D, it has been specifically mentioned that the result of 1998 Admission Batch was withheld for other reasons. The word "other reasons" has not been defined in the Statute either in definition (2) or in the Part-XIV of the Statute. It has also not been defined in the Orissa Universities Act, 1989. But the word ''unfair means'' has been defined in Rule 2 of Sub-rule 1(q) of the Statutes which reads as follows :
"Unfair means" taking of giving or attempting to take or give any help other that one permissible, if any, under the rules applicable thereto, from any material, written, recorded or printed or relayed from any person in any form whatsoever in the examination conducted by or under the authority of university and includes evaluation, tabulation, publication of results, preparation of thesis or dissertation and project/filed reports as a part of the university examination and all other matters connected."
The report of the squad dt 17.4.2002 clearly reveals that there was adoption of unfair means by the petitioners inside the examination hall, who were very much present and were appearing in their back papers.
Ext. E reveals that Special Conducting Board considered the report of the squad relating to the examination on 17.4.2002 and cancelled the examination of S.S.D. College, Bali dtd. 17.4.2002 of Botany Paper IV, Physics Paper IV and C 2 Gen-Ill. The results withheld under Annexure-D clearly shows that the examination of 2002 of 1998 Admission Batch was withheld for other reasons. Therefore, it cannot be said that Ext. B has got no basis and no relation with the pass result published in Annexure-1.
In the result, the Writ Applications, namely W.P.(C) Nos. 220 of 2003, 318 of 2003, 689 of 2003 and 6935 of 2002 are dismissed being devoid of merit and the Writ Application No. 1027 of 2002 is dismissed being infructuous.
P.K. Mohanty, J.
I agree.