U.C.SRIVASTAVA, J. - (1.) A Division Bench of this Court finding itself unable to agree with another Division Bench decision in another writ petition, which too was directed against the cancellation of the result of the 1986 examination conducted by the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad. opposite party No. 1, (for short 'Board'), in these two petitions has referred the following questions for being decided by a larger Bench : (1) Whether the case of Sanjai Srivastava v. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Writ Petn. No. 7396 of 1986 decided on 11-11-1987 at Lucknow Bench was correctly decided? (2) Whether the principle of discrimination laid down in Arvind Kumar Pandey v. Secretary, Board of High School arid Intermediate Education U.P., 1985 UPLBEC 55 and in the Uma Shanker Dube v. Board of High School and Intermediate Education U. P., 1986 UPLBEC 500 can be extended to cases where several students are required to explain in respect of a mathematical equation how their final answer is correct when the intermediate steps are either wrong or missing? (3) Whether in such cases the case of each student will have to be separately examined to see whether reasonable opportunity to defend was provided"? (4) Whether a joint petition can be maintained by several students who were not charged with using unfair means by copying answers from the answer books of each other? and (5) Whether joint petition can be maintained by several students who were charged with using unfair means in different questions and in papers of different subject?
(2.) Out of these two petitions, the first petition is by 19 students of Government Inter College, Rae Bareli. Though they appeared in the Intermediate Examination but their result was withheld. As a matter of fact, result of 223 students was withheld. An enquiry was held against these students for using unfair means in the examination by giving them a questionnaire and after taking their reply the decision was taken by the Board. Out of these 19 petitioners, 12 were charged with using unfair means in answering question No. 4 of Science IInd Paper while the rest were charged that their answers did not contain any intermediate steps but they arrived at correct answer. The charge against 4 petitioners viz. 3,5,7 and 18 was that their answer in Science IInd Papar tallied with answers of other students and that they copied from a common source. One of the petitioner was charged with using unfair means in Mathematics Ist Paper and another petitioner was charged with using unfair means in three papers. The ground of challenge in the petition is that the Board has practised discrimination and thereby violated Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. The main thrust of the argument of petitioners against the Board is that the Board has adopted double standard in deciding their cases and the action of the Board is illegal, discriminatory and arbitrary . A number of students who were charged for the same offence was exonerated including some of the students who were caught redhanded.
(3.) The other writ petition was filed by five students who were also students of the same college and appeared in the Intermediate examination. The charge against them was also of using unfair means and similar enquiry was held. Petitioner No. I was charged with using unfair means in answering question No. 1 of Chemistry II Paper, petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 were charged with using unfair means in answering question No. 4(ka) of Physics II Paper, Petitioner No. 4 was charged with using unfair means in answering question No. 4(kha) of Physics I Paper and the last one was charged for using unfair means in answering question No. 10(ii) of Chemistry I Paper.;