Ram Prit Rai vs The State of Bihar and Others

Shiva Kirti Singh, J.—The sole writ Petitioner in this writ application is an examinee of "Praveshika" Examination 1997 (Annual) conducted by Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar (Respondent No. 2). The said examination is accepted by the State of Bihar as equivalent to secondary school examination (matriculation). The Petitioner took the said examination at Ajit Kumar Mehta Sanskrit Shiksha Sansthan, Uma Kant Nagar, Ladora Dargah, Samastipur examination centre from 23.6.1997 to 28.6.1997. As per impugned order contained in Annexure-9, Respondent No. 2 Hindi Vidyapith has cancelled the examination result of the said examination held at the examination centre of Respondent No. 4, Ajit Kumar Mehta Sanskrit Shiksha Sansthan. The Petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ to quash the order contained in Annexure-9 and for a further direction to the Respondent No. 2 to publish the result of 1997 annual examination taken by the Petitioner.

According to the Petitioner, the examination in question in which the Petitioner participated was held at the examination centre of Respondent No. 4 along with some other examinations conducted by the Respondent No. 2. It is further case of the Petitioner that the said examination was held as per direction of the Respondent No. 2 which had deputed an observer for the examination centre in question and there was no adverse report regarding the conduct of the said examination either by the observer or by the centre superintendent.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 submitted on the basis of a report of District Education Officer, Samastipur dated 25.7.1997 (part of Annexure-8 to the counter affidavit) that the District Education Officer had alleged that the Centre Superintendent of the concerned examination centre did not give any information of the examination in question to the District Education Officer, Samastipur and later when he came to know that such examination had taken place, he made an inspection of the examination centre and found the same unsuitable for holding the examinations as it was at the distance of 4 kms from the town and as it was operating from a dilapidated house. The District Education Officer, as appears from his letter dated 25.7.1997, held the inspection on some unspecified date when the examination was over but of course on inspection of the place, he came to the opinion that the examination was not conducted in accordance with law. To a considerable extent he came to such an opinion on the ground that the Centre Superintendent had not given him any intimation of the examination. On the basis of such report Respondent No. 2 was for an explanation in the matter from the Centre Superintendent through its letter dt. 9.9.1997 (Annexure-3). The Centre Superintendent through his letter dated 15.11.1997 (Annexure-6) informed the Respondent No. 2 that the District Education Officer had never visited the examination centre and the examination in question had been held without any irregularity. It further appears from a letter of the District Magistrate, Samastipur dated 5.8.1997 addressed to the Respondent No. 2 that the District Magistrate also forwarded the letter of the District Education Officer, Samastipur dated 25.7.1997 to the Hindi Vidyapith and on the basis of the said letter of District Education Officer, Samastipur dated 25.7.1997 to the Hindi Vidyapith and on the basis of the said letter of District Education Officer, the District Magistrate also reiterated that the examination in question did not appear to have been conducted in a fair manner and the District Magistrate also levelled an allegation against Hindi Vidyapith that it had failed to give any information regarding holding of such examination either to the District Magistrate or to the District Education Officer, Samastipur. He further requested the Respondent No. 2 to cancel the examination in question. On these materials, the Respondent No. 2 issued the impugned order dated 19.11.1997 contained in Annexure-9 by which the result of the examination in question was cancelled.

On behalf of the Petitioner it was submitted on the basis of Annexure-13, a letter from Respondent No. 2 containing instructions to the Centre Superintendent that there was no responsibility given to the Centre Superintendents to give information of the examination to the district authorities. According to the Petitioner such a responsibility if at all be there, then it rests only upon the Respondent No. 2. It has further been argued that since the only materials or evidence for cancelling the result was the letter of the District Education Officer, the impugned order based on such a report deserves to be quashed because a closure scrutiny of the letter of the District Education Officer disclose that it contains no specific materials to show that the examination was not held in accordance with law rather the fact that the observer and the Centre Superintendent found nothing wrong with the conduct of the examination and the District Education Officer admittedly did not inspect the examination centre during the period the same was held, renders ''the impugned order of Respondent No. 2 as one based on no material.

On 16.12.1999, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 took time to file a supplementary counter affidavit for giving an answer to the query of the Court as to whether Respondent No. 2 had given any intimation about the examination to the District Education Officer, Samastipur and whether such intimation was separately given with regard to other centres for the same examination in the district of Samastipur. A supplementary counter affidavit on behalf of Respondent No. 2 was filed on 3.1.2000 with specific averment that the District Education Officer was duly informed of the examination through a registered letter dated 14.6.1997 and a certificate of the postal authorities was annexed as Annexure-E to show that the said letter was served upon the District Education Officer on 23.6.1997, the day on which the examination commenced. This fact falsifies a substantial part of the letter/report of the District Education Officer dated 25.7.1997 and thus, casts a doubt upon the inference drawn in the said letter which in turn appears to be the basis for subsequent letters by the District Magistrate, Samastipur.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there appears no tangible and relevant material to justify the impugned order contained in Annexure-9. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 tried to justify the impugned order on the ground that the examination committee of the Vidypith on 18.11.1997, as per Annexure-B to the first supplementary counter affidavit considered the matter in question on the basis of letters of the District Magistrate, Samastipur and decided to cancel the result. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 further relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Prem Parkash Kaluniya Vs. The Punjab University and Others, to submit that the conclusion reached on evidence by the Examination Committee of the Vidyapith cannot be re-examined by the Court. A perusal of the said judgment shows that in that case the Court was being called upon to examine the evidence and materials for coming to its own finding as to whether the Petitioner of that case was guilty of charge of copying or not. In that situation that Apex Court held that these are matters on which the Court cannot entertain a petition under Article 226. It was for the Standing Committee to arrive at its own conclusion on the evidence before it and the same cannot be re-examined except on very limited ground which have not been established. (emphasis supplied). The Apex Court further observed in the facts of that case that it was unable to see how the finding of the Standing Committee could be regarded as vague or as having been based on no evidence.

So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the stand of the Petitioner is that there is no evidence to support the impugned order and on a careful perusal of all the facts it is clear that the only material forming the basis for the action is the report of the District Education Officer which is neither reliable as found earlier nor spells out any material to substantiate his inference that the examination in question was not held in accordance with law. On the other hand, the materials on record indicate that the District Education Officer was wrong in alleging regarding lack of knowledge with regard to holding of the examination in question, and neither he inspected the examination while it was being held nor he has named any other person who could be the source for the opinion expressed by the District Education Officer. Admittedly, the Observer appointed by the Respondent No. 2 as well as the Centre Superintendent has not given any adverse report. This situation was probably the reason that the District Magistrate, Samastipur in his letter dated 8.11.1997 (Annexure-A to the 1st supplementary counter affidavit) although vaguely referred to an enquiry but disclosed no material collected in such an enquiry and came to an equally vague conclusion that it could not be proved that examination at the concerned examination centre had been conducted in accordance with law. Had the District Magistrate referred to any specific material and had he come to an opinion that the examination had not been conducted in accordance with law, the matter could have been different. But in spite of abundant opportunities no enquiry report or any material has been produced before the Court by any of the Respondents. Hence, in my view, the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court is of no help to the Respondents because the facts of the case show that the finding of the Examination Committee was in fact based on no evidence.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent referred to another judgment of the Supreme Court to submit that in a case of mass malpractice the results can be nullified without issuing notice to the persons likely to be affected. The said principle is not in controversy in this case and no ground has been urged on behalf of the Petitioner on the basis of principles of natural justice.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 on the basis of an order of this Court contained in Annexure-D passed in another writ application, allegedly of similar nature, submitted that since that writ application was dismissed hence, the present writ application should also be rejected. A perusal of Annexure-D shows that in the said writ petition prayer for interim relief was rejected and in that view of the matter a prayer was made by the Counsel for the Petitioner to dismiss the writ application because the same had become infructuous. On such prayer the said writ petition was dismissed as infructuous. That order, in my view, cannot operate either as a precedent or as res judicata.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 made a half hearted submission that the relief claimed in this petition is against Respondent No. 2 which cannot come within the definition of State or its instrumentality and hence, the writ petition is not maintainable. In the writ petition specific averment has been made that the degrees awarded by Respondent No. 2 are rcognised by the State of Bihar as equivalent to various examinations such as Matriculation, Intermediate and Graduation. This fact is admitted and hence, it cannot be denied that Respondent No. 2 is an authority performing important functions of public nature and discharging public duties. Hence, in as per settled law, it is, in my view, amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court.

For all the reasons mentioned above, I have no option but to hold that the impugned order contained in Annexure-9 is arbitrary, based on no evidence and, therefore, bad in law. This writ petition is accordingly allowed, the impugned decision contained in Annexure-9 is quashed and the Respondent No. 2 is directed to publish the result of Praveshika Examination 1997 (Annual) in which the Petitioner is said to have appeared from examination centre at Ajit Kumar Mehta Sanskrit Sikshan Sansthan, Umakant Nagar, Ladora Dargah, Samastipur, within four weeks from the date of production/communication of a copy of this order before the Respondent No. 2. In the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.