- (1.) VINEET Saran, J. The petitioners are aggrieved by the direction of the Board by which the name of the petitioner - institution has been deleted from the list of centres for High School examinations. The petitioners further pray for a direction to the respondents to restore the petitioner -college as an examination centre.
(2.) I have heard Sri Manu Yadav, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Pleadings have been exchanged and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage. The petitioner No. 1 is an institution duly recognized by the U. P. High School and Intermediate Education Board (for short "board" ). It is also duly recognized as an examination centre for the High School examinations. The petitioner No. 2 is the Manager of the said institution. Although there is no separate order passed in the case of the petitioners but the name of the petitioner -college has been included in the list of over 600 colleges which have been de -recognized as examination centres for three years. Even alongwith the counter -affidavit, the respondents have not filed any order in the individual case of the petitioner -college de -recognizing it as a centre but it has been stated that the same has been done on the basis of the report of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate submitted to the District Magistrate, Shahjahanpur on 29 -3 -2006. On the basis of the said report, the District Inspector of Schools wrote to the Secretary of the Board, and in turn the Chairman of the Examination Committee directed inclusion of the name of the petitioner -college in the list of colleges which are to be debarred for three years from holding the examinations.
(3.) A perusal of the report dated 29 -3 -2006 submitted by the Sub - Divisional Magistrate shows, that at the time of inspecting the said centre, he had found a student standing under suspicious circumstances and that there was similarity in the answers given by several students, and that he was informed that some outsiders were seen in the vicinity of the examination centre. It was on the basis of such report that the District Inspector of Schools wrote to the Secretary of the Board on 1 -4 -2006 stating that the Sub -Divisional Magistrate had submitted a report that the invigilator was dictating the answers, and as such mass -copying was being done at the examination centre. It is because of such reports that the examination centre of the petitioner -college had been cancelled for three years. Sri Manu Yadav, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the Sub -Divisional Magistrate is not the authority empowered under the Act and the Regulations for assessing the fairness of the examination, and it is only the educational authorities which are authorized to do so, and in the absence of there being any independent report of any educational authority with regard to any misconduct in the holding of examination, the order debarring the petitioner -college from being an examination centre, solely on the basis of the report of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, would not be justified. It has also been submitted that the educational authorities have not taken any action with regard to the cancellation of examination in which the mass -copying has been alleged, nor any action has been taken against the invigilators or the Centre Superintendent, and as such also the action of the respondents in the case of the petitioner is totally unjustified. It was lastly submitted that valuable rights of the petitioners are affected by passing of the order debarring the petitioner -college from being an examination centre, and the same could not have been passed without complying with the principles of natural justice, and in the present case no notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners before passing the said order.;