M.MURTAZA HUSAIN, J. - (1.) THIS is a students petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 31-12-75 and 11-5-76 passed by the opposite party namely, the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad or the Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P. at Allahabad. The petitioner has further prayed for issuing any other appropriate writ, order or direction against the opposite party for declaring the petitioners result of Intermediate Final Examination, 1975 which examination he is said to have passed in Second Division.
(2.) THE undisputed facts of the case, giving rise to this petition, are that the opposite party is a statutory body created under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Its function is to conduct High School and Intermediate Examination in the State, Ajai Kumar Srivastava, petitioner had appeared at the Intermediate Final Examination of the year 1974-75. His subjects were of Mathematics Group. The petitioners roll number in that examination was 157667 and his examination centre was Niblet Islamia Inter College, Bara Banki. The result of that examination was published in the special issue of the Pioneer at Lucknow on 6-7-76 wherein the petitioner was shown as having passed in Second Division. Immediately thereafter the opposite party directed the Principal of the petitioners College to withhold his marks sheet. A charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner informing him that he was suspected of having used unfair means while solving question No. 6 (Ga) of physics 1st Paper as the result of that question arrived at by the petitioner was correct, but one step was missing from the solution whereby the petitioner had arrived at that result. The petitioner submitted a reply wherein he pleaded that one step of the solution was missed by him due to inadvertence and shortage of time which was at his disposal and it was not the result of copying or adopting any unfair means. A Screening Committee was appointed by the opposite party to look into the matter. It came to the conclusion that unfair means were adopted by the petitioner in solving the aforesaid question of physics 1st paper. That finding of the screening committee was accepted by the sub-committee of the Board which was constituted for dealing with the cases of candidates suspected of adopting unfair means at the examination. The petitioners result was consequently cancelled by the opposite party on 31-12-1975. The petitioner submitted a representation before the Chairman of the opposite party which was rejected on 11-5-1976. The petitioner has now come to this court with the present petition. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the decision of the opposite party cancelling petitioners result, with a finding that unfair means were used by the petitioner while answering question No. 6 (Ga) of physics 1st paper, was not based upon any evidence whatsoever. It has also been alleged by him that a decision was earlier taken by the opposite party to release the results of candidates who had omitted to mention one or two steps in solving questions of Intermediate physics 1st paper of 1975. As a result of that decision many other candidates, who had committed such mistakes, were already exonerated by the Board, but discrimination was shown by it in the case of the petitioner. These allegations of the petitioner have been denied by the opposite party. In the counter-affidavit it is maintained that the finding of the screening committee regarding use of unfair means by the petitioner while solving question No. 6 (Ga) of physics 1st paper was correct and the concerned Sub-Committee of the opposite party had rightly cancelled the petitioners result.
(3.) IT cannot be denied that this Court had jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution to issue prerogative writs, including a writ of certiorari, to persons and authorities within its jurisdiction for the redress of any injury of a substantial nature by reason of the contravention of any of the provisions of the Constitution, or any enactment or ordinance etc., or by reason of any illegality in any proceedings by or before any authority under any provision referred to in the Article where such illegality has resulted in substantial failure of justice. It has been laid down in Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P. Allahabad v. Ghanshyam Das Gupta (AIR 1962 SC 1110), Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P. Allahabad v. Bagleshwar Prasad (AIR 1966 SC 875), Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P. v. Kumari Chittra Srivastava (AIR 1970 SC 1039), Prabhat Kumar v. Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P. (1971 All LJ 1391), Mushtaq Husain v. Secretary Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P. (AIR 1973 All 537) and Triambak Pati Tripathi v. Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P. Allahabad (AIR 1973 All 1 (FB)) that the Examination Committee of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. namely, the opposite party of the present petition, while dealing with cases of examinees using unfair means in examination hall, acts quasi-judicially and prerogative writs in the nature of certiorari can be issued by the High Court against the said Board where the circumstances of a particular case so justify.;