The Governing Body, Palsama +2 College vs The Council of Higher Secondary Education

Heard.

The Petitioners are the Governing Body and the Principal of the Palsama +2 College. They challenge the order Annexure-4 by which the

Council, Higher Secondary Education, Orissa, Opp. Party No. 1 cancelled Physics Paper-1 of Science stream on the ground of mass mal

practice. Petitioners put forth their case that only four students were caught raid handed with incriminating materials and, therefore, all the 98

students appearing at the examination should not be punished. It reveals from the rejoinder filed today that Petitioners plead their innocence and

alleges that a false report was submitted by the Flying Squad as against the examinees of Physics Paper-1, which examination was conducted on

06-03-2006. On the other hand Opp. Party Nos. 1 and 2 have stated in their counter that the Flying Squad found the students being indulged in

mass mal practice, persons who were not assigned with invigilation duty were in the surrounding area of the examination center. Accordingly the

Opp. Party members reiterated the decision and pray to dismiss the Writ Petition.

Mr. Mohapatra, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners argues that there is no proof available to the Opp. Party No. 1 regarding mal practice

resorted to by any other students except four students who were named in the report and, therefore, this case was squarely governed by the ratio

in the case Indira Gandhi Mahila Mahavidyalaya and Anr. v. The Council of Higher Secondary Education 2006 (2) OLR 774. He further submits

that Petitioners were never provided with opportunity of hearing before taking the decision in Annexure-4 by the Opp. Party-members and,

therefore, such decision of Opp. Parties is violative of principle of natural justice.

On the other hand Mr. Jena, Learned Counsel for Opp. Parties supports the plea taking in to account the counter and the decision taken in

Annexure-4. He argues that providing an opportunity of hearing is neither the procedure provided in the statute nor the mandate of any law. In

support of that submission he relies on the decision in the case of The Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Subhas Chandra Sinha and Others, .

Mr. Jena also produces before us the report of the Flying Squad. It reveals from that report that three Lecturers of three educational institutions

were the members of the Flying Squad and they visited the examination center of the Petitioners on 06-03-2006. In that report they have

specifically stated that almost all the candidates were involved in mal practice, the Centre Superintendent, Invigilators and even persons who were

not in invigilation duty were assisting and abetting the aforesaid mass mal practice inasmuch as after reaching of the Squad members in the

examination hall, one lady Lecturer (Mrs. Pattanaik), some persons and staff collected incriminating materials from the candidates in the

examination hall and rushed to hide the same. The Flying Squad in no uncertain terms made the report of mass mal practice. There is no evidence

to falsify or rebut the above-discussed report of the Flying Squad. It is appropriate to note here that there is no allegation of mala fide substantiated

by evidence as against the members of the Flying Squad. Report of the Flying Squad indicates about a sorry state of affair in conducting the

examination on 06-03-2006 under the superintendence of Petitioner No. 2. In the case of Indira Gandhi Mahila Vidyalaya (supra) facts were

completely different inasmuch as the flying Squad found only 12 examinees indulged in the mal practice and there was no report or material that all

the students were indulged in mal practice. Therefore, ratio in that case is not applicable to the fact and circumstance of the present case. In view

of the ratio of the Apex Court in the case of Bihar School Examination Board (supra), Petitioners cannot claim for personal hearing before the

decision Annexure-4 was taken by Opp. Party members.

Under such circumstances, after going through the contention in the Writ Petition and the rejoinder and contention in the counter filed by the

Council and the submission made by the parties, we find that no illegality was committed in the decision taken by the Opp. Parties. Hence the Writ

Petition is dismissed accordingly.