K. N. Singh, J. - (1.) A Division Bench of this Court, expressing doubt about the correctness of the principles laid down by another Bench of this Court in Prabhat Kumar v. Board of High School and Intermediate Education (1971 All LJ 1391) referred the writ petition for decision to a larger Bench. Since the entire case has been referred to this Bench, it is essential to state necessary facts giving rise to this petition.
(2.) THE petitioner appeared at the Intermediate Examination of 1973 held by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education (hereinafter referred to as the Board) from the Government Inter College, Banda. A complaint was received by the Board that unfair means was used by the examinees at large scales at the said centre in answering the question papers of Intermediate Examination of 1973. THE Board appointed a Screening Committee of experts in various subjects to ascertain the correctness of the allegations. THE Screening Committee on scrutiny of the answer books found that examinees who appeared from that centre, including the petitioner, had used unfair means. THE Examinations Committee appointed a spot enquiry committee to enquire into the matter in detail and it approved a charge sheet in the form of a questionnaire for service of the same on the erring examinees. THE spot enquiry committee served the charge sheet on the petitioner and obtained his explanation. THE charge sheet alleged that in answering question No. 1 of Chemistry Second paper, the petitioner had used unfair means and in support of the charge it was alleged that the petitioner had arrived at the correct answer without going through the requisite working either in rough or in the answer itself which could not be possible, therefore the petitioner had answered the question with the aid of some outside agency. THE petitioner denied the charge and asserted that arithmetical steps involved in the question were so simple that he solved the same orally and there was no necessity of doing any rough work. He further denied to have obtained any extraneous help directly or indirectly through any source. THE Examination Committee did not find the petitioner's explanation satisfactory, it held the petitioner guilty of having used unfair means and it thereupon cancelled the petitioner's Intermediate Examination of 1973. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the aforesaid order of the Board. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that there was no evidence to sustain the decision of the Examinations Committee that the petitioner had used unfair means. Absence of rough works or requisite working did not conclusively prove that the petitioner had used unfair means. The Examinations Committee could not draw inference of use of unfair means on account of the absence of rough work and requisite working. The principle of circumstantial evidence contemplates that the circumstances must conclusively point out the petitioner's guilt and if there is any possibility of petitioner's innocence the petitioner could not be held guilty. In this context learned counsel further urged that the decision of the Examinations Committee is arbitrary which no reasonable person could arrive at. Sri S.C. Verma, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Board, urged that there was intrinsic evidence in the petitioner's answer book which was sufficient to sustain the decision of the examinations committee. The Examinations Committee was justified in drawing inference from the circumstances available on record and the rule of circumstantial evidence as applicable to criminal trials is not applicable to proceedings before it. Learned counsel further urged that while considering the validity of the decision of the Examinations Committee the High Court should not interfere with its order merely because a different view is possible on the material on record.
(3.) QUESTION No. 1 of Chemistry, II paper, was as follows : "1. An organic compound containing carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen on analysis gave C = 40.57%, H = 8.53%, N = 23.65%; when treated with bromine and caustic potash, it gave a colourless gas like ammonia which produced white fumes with hydrochloric acid gas. This gas when treated with nitrous acid gave an alcohol and nitrogen. The molecular weight of the substance was found to be 59. Assign a structural formula to this compound." The answer given by the petitioner was as under :- answer have been arrived at by the petitioner with wrong working. It is further asserted that the working in finding out the correct answer 2 : 5 : 1 : 1 has nowhere been shown. The petitioner wrote 1.65 without proper working. As a matter of fact 40.57 should have been divided by 12, instead of 1.65 and 8.63 by 1 and 23-65 by 14. The working shown by the petitioner and the steps taken by him could not lead to the correct formula as derived by the petitioner. These facts clearly indicate that the petitioner had no knowledge of the question and he got the correct answer by taking wrong steps, on the basis of which the correct formula could not be derived. In view of these circumstances, the Examinations Committee drew an inference that the petitioner had used unfair means in answering the said question.;