AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bakthavatsalam, J.—The petitioner challenges an order dated 27-7-1992 passed by the first respondent cancelling all the plus two
examinations written by the petitioner in March, 1992 and directing that he should be debarred from writing the plus two examinations for three
sessions.
The petitioner is a student of Government High School, Namakkal South. He seems to have appeared for the examinations for plus two in
March, 1992. He was allotted the Registration No. 751810. It is alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition that on 16-3-
1992, while the petitioner was writing the examination in English First Paper, after filling up the particulars in the first page of the main answer
book, he found that by inadvertence one more main answer book has also been included and that the second main answer book was not in the
proper format. It is further alleged in the affidavit that the petitioner had brought this to the notice of the Invigilator at the examination hall itself, but
the Invigilator told him that the petitioner could very well write his answers in the second answer book and stitch it along with the first main answer
book. In such circumstance, it is alleged that the petitioner wrote all the answers in the second answer book which had inadvertently been included
after the first page of the main answer book and that when the answer books were forwarded to the second respondent, by a notice dated 10-4-
1992, the second respondent called upon the petitioner to give an explanation as to how he had submitted his answers in an unauthorised answer
book. It is also stated in the affidavit that the petitioner also submitted his explanation stating all the facts, on the basis of which a report was called
for from the Headmaster of the School and that a statement was also called for from the concerned Invigilator. It is alleged that both the
Headmaster and the Invigilator gave statements according to which, each student was thoroughly checked before he entered the examination hall
and therefore, there was no possibility of the student carrying any unauthorised bits of paper, but on certain occasions, by mistake it was also
possible that additional books could be included along with the main answer book. It is further alleged by the petitioner that the Invigilator was
vigilant enough in the examination hall that therefore there was no possibility of the student using any unfair means at the examination hall and that
the other two students who were also writing the examination near the petitioner also gave a statement to the very same effect. It is also alleged that
the second respondent felt satisfied that there was a genuine mistake and therefore, he forwarded the examination results to the first respondent for
publication, and that it was at this stage the first respondent has taken a different view and by an order dated 27-7-1992, without even calling for
any explanation from the student, (petitioner) passed the impugned order directing that the petitioner should be debarred from writing the plus two
examinations for three sessions September, 1992, March 1993 and September, 1993. It seems that the petitioner also submitted a representation
to the Minister for Education. Having not received any reply for his representation from the Minister for Education and being felt aggrieved by the
order impugned in the present writ petition, the petitioner has come up before this Court alleging that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also pointed out that the impugned order has been passed violating the principles of natural
justice and that the second respondent, who is the competent authority has accepted the explanation given by the petitioner, on the basis of a
report called for by the second respondent. Therefore according to the petitioner, if the first respondent felt it fit to take a different view, he ought
to have passed the impugned order only after issuing notice to the petitioner. It is also pointed out in the affidavit that a perusal of the records and
the evidence on record would clearly establish that these was absolutely no reason for the first respondent to come to a conclusion that the
petitioner had used unfair means in the examination hall and that except the report at the camp, there is no other material to come to such a
conclusion that the petitioner has indulged in malpractice during the examination. It is also pointed out that the second respondent alone in the
competent authority to take disciplinary proceedings against the students, who use unfair means during the examination and that the first respondent
can take a different view from that of the view taken by the second respondent only after issuing notice to the students, calling upon them to submit
explanation in writing.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second respondent. Facts are not disputed in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second
respondent. It is however, stated in the counter affidavit that the respondent supplied only one main answer book containing 16 pages of which the
first cover page is not intended to answer, but the remaining 15 pages are intended to answer by the candidates, and that the petitioner wrote his
answers in the unattached inner book which was not in the proper format. It is also pointed out in the counter affidavit that the first respondent
never interfered in the matter and that the second respondent alone initiated disciplinary action and passed the final orders debarring the petitioner
from writing the examinations, as per the Rules laid down in the G.O.Ms. No. 2174 (Education (VI)) dated 30th September. 1981. It is further
pointed out in the counter affidavit that as per G.O. Ms. No. 2176 (Education VI) Department, dated 30th September, 1981 the first respondent
is the appellate authority, that the candidate had not filed any appeal before the first respondent and that the Minister for Education has no legal
rights to interfere in such matters. U is also pointed out in the counter affidavit that on perusal of the reports and ail the connected material it had
been found that the answer papers in which the candidate (the petitioner) has written the answers were not supplied by the Department and that it
was only under those circumstance, it was concluded that the petitioner has substituted the unauthorised answer papers which might have been
written from out side the examination hall and punishment was awarded to the petitioner in the ordered impugned in the present writ petition.
I have heard Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner would state that except the
statements of the Headmaster and the Invigilator which are in favour of the petitioner, there is no other material to come to a conclusion that the
petitioner had used unfair means in the examination hall or he had substituted the unauthorised answer book, while submitting his answer books to
the Hall Superintendent. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed on ''no evidence'' and it is
therefore perverse. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the action taken by the authorities against the petitioner on the
basis of the report given by the examiner, who was at camp at various centres at which the examinations took place to the effect that the answer
book contained more number of pages than the number of pages which would have been in the answer book supplied by the department is
uncalled for and arbitrary and is based only on sovereigns (sic). Learned Government Advocate however contends that the respondents came to
the conclusion only on the ground that the answer book (English First paper) submitted by the petitioner contained more number of pages that the
original number of pages that are expected to be in an answer book and that the same has not been supplied by the Department. Learned
Government Advocate has also produced a specimen answer book before this Court to show that the answer book in which the petitioner wrote
the answers during the examination was not the one supplied by the Department to the various centres, where the examinations took place. As
directed by me, the entire files have been produced before this Court for perusal and I have also gone through them. On perusal of the files, I find
that the statements given both the Headmaster and the Invigilator support the case of the petitioner. What contained in the report given by the
Headmaster has been repeated in the statement given by the Invigilator, who supervised the examination hall, where the petitioner wrote the
examination. The respondents came to the conclusion that the answer book used by the petitioner was a different one, on the basis of the remarks
given by the Headmaster that sometimes, they used to receive answer books containing more number of pages than the original and expected
number of pages in the answer book. The specimen answer book, as produced by the learned Government Advocate was not the one that was
used during the examination held in 1992. It is of the recent origin. Therefore, there is no point in looking at it. The report of the Examiner was on
camp alone is the material, on the basis of which the respondent arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner used unfair means and substituted an
unauthorised answer book and thus committed malpractice in the examination. I am not able to agree with the arguments advanced by the learned
Government Advocate in this regard. From the facts, it is very clear that the Headmaster himself in his remarks has stated that it is not uncommon
to receive answer books containing unusual number of pages. Further, even though the petitioner brought to the notice of the Invigilator that he was
given a second answer book along with'' the original one, he was permitted by the very same Invigilator to write his answers in that second answer
book, which was not in the usual format. In such circumstances, merely on a suspicion the answer book that was used by the petitioner in the
examination was not the one supplied by the Department, the respondent cannot come to a conclusion that the petitioner had used unfair means in
the examination hall and that he has substituted an unauthorised answer book and on that basis punish him as per the order impugned in this writ
petition. In my considered view, the view taken by the second respondent is highly perverse and it came to be passed on no evidence. Though it is
true that this Court should be very slow in interfering with regard to the issue involved in the present writ petition, yet when a glaring perverse
decision is taken by the authorities is brought to the notice of this court by the citizen this Court has to render its helping hand to them by exercising
its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, This is one of such cases, where this Court has got to necessarily
exercised its discretionary powers in favour of the petitioner.
In the result, the order impugned in this writ petition is set aside and the respondents are directed to value the English (I Paper) written by the
petitioner in March, 1992 and published the result thereof within a period of one months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This writ
petition shall stand allowed. No costs.
Petition allowed.