V.K.Khanna - (1.) THE petitioner was a student of Shyam Sunder Memorial Inter College, Chandausi, district Moradabad from 1987 to 1989, and appeared at the High School Examination conducted by respondent no 1 in 1989, According to the petitioner the result of the examination was declared some time in June 1989 and from the result the petitioner came to know that his result was with-held. It has been stated that before the cancellation of the 1989 result of the petitioner neither any notice nor any opportunity was given to the petitioner for putting forward his case. THE petitioner thereafter did not take any admission in any class and preferred to fill in the form as a private candidate for the year 1990 from Madan Lal Intermediate College, Bisauli on the basis of a transfer certificate which has been supplied by his earlier College viz. Shyam Sunder Memorial Intermediate College, Chandausi. It is admitted that the petitioner in the form which he had filled to appear as a private candidate in the High School Examination in the year 1990 had mentioned that bis result for some reason has been cancelled for the year 1989 by the Board. According to the petitioner his application was approved by the Principal of Madan Lal Intermediate College and he was admitted to the examination of 1990 and appeared therein. However, at the time of the declaration of the result the petitioner again found against his Roll number "W. L. " was written. According to the petitioner no opportunity of any kind had been given before awarding the punishment of debarring the petitioner from appearing in 1990 High School Examination.
(2.) AT the admission stage a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the contesting respondent-Board. In para 5 it has been stated that the charge related to his having resorted to use unfair means in the examination corresponding in the year 1989 and the fact that he was caught red-handed while taking resort to unfair means was communicated to him. The petitioner despite the service of show cause notice did not prefer to make any explanation and did not avail the opportunity afforded to him of showing cause. The Nistaran Samiti after perusing the recommendations of the Sub-Committees came to a definite conclusion that the petitioner had used unfair means and decided to cancel his examination corresponding to the year 1989 and debarred him from taking up the examination corresponding to the year 1990. In paragraph 14 it has been categorically stated that the decision of the Nistaran Samiti has been duly communicated to the petitioner through the Head of the Institution vide sub Office at Bareilly of the answering respondent on 16-1-1990. It may also be mentioned that the original record of this case has been produced before me and I have perused the same. From the record it is clear that a hand-written chit was recovered from the possession of the petitioner which was meant for using to solve one of the questions in the answer book. There was thus clear cut evidence of using unfair means and the finding of the Nistaran Samiti that the petitioner had used unfair means can not be said to be suffering from any error of law requiring interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner according to the Board had been afforded opportunity which he did not avail. The crucial question which fails for determination in this case is as to whether the petitioner had been communicated about the decision of the Board that his High School examination of the year 1989 had been cancelled and that he had been debarred from appearing in the High School Examination of 1990. The petitioner has filed along with his writ petition a character certificate in which it has been mentioned that his 1989 Examination had been cancelled and that he had been allowed to appear in 1990 examination. The counsel for the petitioner was asked to produce before the Court the original of that character certificate- The original character certificate which has been produced before me is not a transfer certificate but is headed as a character certificate. A bare perusal of the aforesaid character certificate shows that it has been isued on 16-7-1990. The character certificate is a printed document in Hindi in which the principal is expected to fill in the blanks. Most of the blanks have been filled in a different ink However, in the blank which was meant for mentioning special qualification, it would appear to the naked eye that there has been re-writing in a different ink by a different person over the original writing and the second thing which becomes evident is that in the column which is meant for mentioning special qualification, the readable portion is as follows :- "1989 ki pariksha nirast ki tatha 1990 men baithne ki anumati pradan ki This document, in my opinion has been created by making interpolation in the character certificate and no reliance could be placed on such a document.
(3.) AS has been stated above, the Board has come with the categorical case that the petitioner had been intimated the decision cancelling his result for the year 1989 and debarring him from appearing in the 1990 examination on 16-1-1990 The petitioner was thus in know of the fact that his examination result of 1989 was cancelled and that he had been debarred from appearing in 1990 examination. At this stage it may be mentioned the order cancelling the petitioner's result for the year 1989 and debarring him from the examination of 1990 has not been challenged on merits. What has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the petitioner has been allowed to sit in the High School Examination of 1990 the principle of promissory estoppel will apply and the Board can not now rely on its decision cancelling the petitioner's examination for the year 1990. After carefully considering the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner I am, however, of the opinion that this is a case in which the petitioner supplied wrong information intentionally while filling the form for appearing in the examination of 1990. The petitioner has even filed in this writ petition a character, certificate which he terms as a Transfer Certificate on which no reliance can be [placed for the reasons stated above. The Court can take judicial notice of this fact that several lacs candidates appear every year in the High School Examination conducted by the Board. The forms at the level of the Principal of the Institution are scrutinised and forwarded to the Board on the basis of trie documents and declaration made by the candidate. A candidate like the petitioner who has not come with the clean hands and has not stated the correct facts in his form can not take advantage of the fact that the Board under mistaken facts permitted the petitioner to appear in the 1990 Examination. Permitting the petitioner to take advantage of his own mis-representation would be giving premium to a person who had clearly used unfair means in the Examination and who had intentionally suppressed material facts while filling the form and wrongly represented that he had been permitted to appear by the Board in 1990 Examination. There is thus no question of applying the principle of promissory estoppel in the present case.;