Sahibjeet Singh vs Board of Technical Education

V.K. Jain, J.—The petitioner before this Court was studying in GTB Polytechnic, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi pursuing a three year Diploma

Course in Automobile Engineering. The study in the said course consists of six semesters. In the examinations held in December, 2012-January,

2013 the petitioner appeared in the fifth semester examination and also re-appeared in two papers of the third semester in which he had failed

during regular semester examination. On 14.12.2012, the flying squad of the Board of Technical Education checked the petitioner and found that

he was carrying with him a note containing material which was relevant for Principles of Thermal Engineering, the paper in which the petitioner was

appearing at that time. Vide notice dated 11.1.2013, the petitioner was required to appear before the Examination Committee of the Board on

31.1.2013. The petitioner accordingly appeared before the Committee and after hearing him the Committee decided to cancel his supplementary

examination of the third term as well as the regular examination of the fifth term, in terms of Rule 11B of the Board.

Being aggrieved from the aforesaid decision, the petitioner filed WP (C) No. 6001/2013 which came to be disposed of vide order dated

20.9.2013 with a direction to the University to treat the said petition as a representation from the petitioner for reducing the quantum of

punishment. Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the Examination Committee of the Board re-considered the matter but

maintained the punishment which it had earlier imposed upon the petitioner. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order passed by the Committee the

petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:

a. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing Order dated 4.3.2013 bearing No. F. No. 51(5)/Dec/2012/Exam/BTE/UF/489 passed

by the respondent, whereby the respondent declared the entire Board Examination as cancelled in terms of Rule 11B of the Board consequently

the result of the petitioner declared vide 2.4.2013 was also treated as cancelled.

b. Issue a writ in the nature mandamus thereby directing the respondent to restore the petitioner''s result in terms of result declared vide dated

2.4.2013 on the notice board of the respondent, in which the petitioner was passed.

Rule 11 of the Rules framed by the Board with respect to punishment for using unfair means in the Board examination to the extent it is relevant

reads as under:

PUNISHMENT FOR USE OF UNFAIR MEANS

...

...

Part-B PUNISHMENT

Cancellation of the Entire Examination.

Offence:

Where the candidate is found having in his possession papers, books or notes or is found having written notes on the question paper or on any

part of the clothes worn by him or on a part of his body or table or desk or is found in possession of ruler and/or instruments like; Set-squares

protractors, slide rules etc. With notes written on them and which notes, papers or the material written on ruler or instrument, or on the question

paper or on clothes worn by him/her or any part of his body, table or desk etc., could be helpful or of assistance to him in answering the paper he

is taking or could be helpful or of assistance to other candidate in that examination hall, but the candidate has not attempted to take any assistance

himself or give any assistance to any other candidate from such material.

Where the candidate intentionally tears off the answer book or a part thereof or a continuation sheet.

Where the candidates deliberately discloses his identity or makes any distinctive mark in the answer book for that purpose in contravention of

any general rules in this behalf.

Where the candidate uses abusive or obscene language in the answer book.

Where the candidate is guilty of misbehaviour in connection with the examination, with the Superintendent of Centre, the invigilator on duty and

the other staff working at the examination centre or with any other candidate in or around the Examination Centre before, during or after the

examination.

Where the candidate leaves the examination room before expiry of half an hour without the written permission of the Superintendent of the

centre and/or without handing the answer book to the Invigilator/In-charge and/or without signing the attendance sheet.

It would, thus, be seen that in case a candidate is found in possession of papers or notes which could be helpful or of assistance to him in

answering the paper he is taking or could be helpful or of assistance to other candidates present in the examination hall, but the candidate has not

attempted to take any assistance himself or given assistance to any other candidate from the material being carried by him he is entitled to

punishment under Part-B of Rule 11, the prescribed, punishment being cancellation of the entire examination.

Admittedly, the petitioner at the time he was found in possession of a note which could be of help in the paper of Principles of Thermal

Engineering was re-appearing in two papers in which, he had failed to clear in the third semester. Therefore, while exercising its power under Rule

11B the respondent-Board could have cancelled the entire examination of the third semester, i.e., both the papers of the third semester in which he

was re-appearing in December, 2012-January, 2013, but could not have cancelled examination for the fifth semester. Cancelling the third semester

papers in which the petitioner was reappearing as well as the fifth semester papers would amount to cancellation of two examinations, not of one

examination. The punishment prescribed in the Rules, in my view, envisages cancellation only of the examination in which the candidate is found

using unfair means and not all the other examination which the candidate may be taking in the same year or in the same semester. Since the

petitioner was found using unfair means in a paper of third semester, his entire examination for the remaining paper of the third semester, in which

he was appearing in December, 2012-January, 2013, which in this case were two papers-one Principles of Thermal Engineering and second

Elements of Strength of Hydraulics & Material, could have been cancelled. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order is modified to

the extent that the result of the petitioner stands cancelled in respect of the third semester papers in which he was appearing in December, 2012-

January, 2013. The respondent-Board is directed to declare the result of the petitioner in respect of the fifth term papers within two (2) weeks

from today.

The writ petition stands disposed of. No orders as to costs.