Bose, J. - (1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for an appropriate writ directing the opposite parties to withdraw or revoke the order of cancellation of the Intermediate Licentiateship Medical examination held at the Burdwan centre in June 1051 and to publish the results of the said examination. The petitioner is a Matriculate of the University of Calcutta. In 1947 he got himself admitted into the Chittagong Medical School in Eastern Pakistan for the purpose of obtaining a L.M.F. Diploma. In 1948 the petitioner passed the Primary examination. In February 1950 owing to communal disturbances in Eastern Pakistan the petitioner and his family came over to India as refugees. After coming to India, the petitioner continued his medical studies and got himself admitted in the Burdwan Ronaldshay Medical School, which is an institution run by the State Medical Faculty of West Bengal. In November 1960 the petitioner appeared in the Intermediate examination conducted by the said Faculty and out of the 3 subjects prescribed for such examination the petitioner passed in two subjects namely Physiology and Pharmacology but was unsuccessful in the 3rd subject namely Anatomy. Under R, 4 of the Rules and Regulations of the said Medical Faculty relating to Intermediate Licentiateship examination a candidate who fails in one subject only is on payment of a certain fee permitted to appear in that subject at the next 6 monthly examination and if he passes he shall be held to have passed the entire examination, but a candidate failing to pass or appear under this provision shall be required to appear in all subjects of the examination. By virtue of this rule the petitioner got a chance to appear in the Anatomy paper at the June term examination in 1951. In April 1951 the medical school where the petitioner was prosecuting his studies held a test examination and the petitioner stood first in Anatomy. Thereafter the petitioner appeared at the June term of the Intermediate examination of the Medical Faculty which was held on or about 7-6-1951. Under the rules the petitioner had to sit for a theoretical examination in Anatomy and also for oral and practical examination. The theoretical examination was held on the aforesaid date namely 7-6-1951 and on 18-6-1951 the oral and practical examinations were held. It is alleged that the petitioner fared well in all these examinations. It appears that about 71 students from different schools in West Bengal appeared in the said examination of the June term held in the Burdwan centre. Under the rules and regulations framed for the conduct of these medical examinations the examinations at the different centres are conducted under the supervision of a presiding officer, inspectors, convenor and invigilators. It appears that so far as this June term examination in Burdwan centre was concerned there was no unhappy incident during the examination. There was no case of detection of any unfair means being adopted by any of the candidates and there was no case of any expulsion from the examination hall for taking any unfair means and there was no adverse report by either the presiding officer or the inspectors or the invigilators conducting the examination. It further appears from the rules and regulations for the conduct of the medical examination that the examiners who conduct oral and practical examinations are to examine and look over the written theoretical papers of the examinees before they take up oral and practical examinations of these examinees and they are further to enter the marks of the theoretical papers on the slip rolls. It is alleged that at the time the petitioner's practical and oral examination was held the theoretical written papers and the roll slips containing the marks of that paper were before the examiners. After the oral and practical examination of the petitioner was over the petitioner got the impression that he had fared well in such examination but sometime later the petitioner found to his utter surprise from a notice signed by the Secretary of the State Medical Faculty and hung up in the Notice Board of the school that the examination of 51 candidates including the petitioner out of the total of 71 candidates had been canceled for taking unfair means, The petitioner thereupon made enquiries and came to know that at an emergent meeting of the Governing Body of the State Medical Faculty held on 25-7-1951 the Governing Body had resolved and decided that the entire examination of the term in all the subjects of the said 51 candidates would stand cancelled, as the Governing Body had come to the conclusion that these candidates had adopted unfair means. The Governing Body came to this conclusion inasmuch as the answers written by a large number of candidates were exactly similar and most of the answers in the Anatomy and Physiology subjects is were verbatim reproduction of certain pages of Gray's Anatomy and Chakravarti's "Aids to Human Physiology". It is alleged in the petition that the Governing Body was wrong in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner had adopted any unfair means. It is alleged that Gray's Anatomy is the only text book prescribed for the examination and it being a highly technical subject the petitioner who wanted to get through the examination had to commit to memory important portions of the book and as the questions set were stock questions the petitioner answered the same to me best of his ability and knowledge and without adopting any unfair means. It appears that after the decision of the Governing Body as to cancellation of the entire examination of the June term was taken, a notice was issued by the Governing Body that in view of the cancellation candidates who had already passed in 2 subjects would have to appear again in all the 3 subjects. In other words the notice purported to cancel the result of the previous examination held in November 1950. It is alleged that the order of cancellation of the examination was passed without any enquiry and without giving the petitioner any opportunity to offer an explanation. It is further alleged that there is no rule by which the Governing Body can cancel the entire examination when there is no detection of any unfair means being adopted by the candidates during the examination. The petitioner challenges the order of cancellation of the examination as illegal and arbitrary and as being against all principles of natural justice.
(2.) The counter affidavit filed in the present proceeding is affirmed by one Haridas Gariguly, who is the Head Assistant in the office of the State Medical Faculty of West Bengal. In this affidavit it is admitted that no candidate was actually hauled up in the examination hall for resorting to unfair means but the examiners made an adverse report to the State Medical Faculty stating that the written answers of a large number of candidates were exactly the same in language and contents and many of the candidates could not answer the same questions at the oral examination and the examiners thereupon strongly suspected that unfair means of copying had been resorted to by the candidates at the written examination. It is further stated in this affidavit that the written examinations in the three subjects viz. Anatomy Physiology and Pharmacology were held on the 7th, 8th and 9th June 1951 respectively and there were 6 questions in each subject -- each question being answered in a separate book -- for eventual examination by 3 examiners, namely two questions by each examiner. The examiners commenced their examination of the written answer books as well as the oral and practical examinations from, 15-6-1951 and such examinations continued till 19-6-1951 and it was during this time that a suspicion arose in the minds of the examiners that there was something unusual in the written answers and after further comparisons and consultations the examiners in Anatomy and Physiology submitted their report dated 28-6-1951. On receipt of these reports the Board of Studies had a meeting held on that very date and directed a scrutiny of the written answer books by two of its members and at a subsequent emergent meeting held on 10-7-1951 the Board directed the examiners to meet again and go into the matter fully. The examiners thereafter met on 13-7-1951 for comparison of the answer papers and for sorting out answer books in which the answers were similar in language. The Board thereafter met on 16-7-1951 and after considering all the reports and comparing the answer books with certain pages of Grey's Anatomy and Chakravarti's 'Aids to Human Physiology' the Board came to the conclusion that 51 candidates including the petitioner had adopted unfair means. The matter was then taken up at an emergent meeting of the entire Governing Body on 25-7-1951 and the resolution as to cancellation of the entire examination was passed at such, meeting by the Governing Body. Subsequently on 9-8-1951 the Board of Studies took the view-that these candidates must appear in all the 3 subjects at the ensuing examination and this was approved by the Governing Body at a mating held on 20-8-1951 The proceedings of the emergent meeting of the Governing Body held on 25-7-1951 as also copies of reports of the examiners in Physiology and Anatomy dated 28-6-1951 have been annexed in this Counter Affidavit and it appears therefrom that the examiners who submitted the reports and the members of the Governing B'ldy who participated in the meeting of 25-7-1951 were of opinion that the answers of a large number of candidates were exactly similar and most of the answers in the 2 subjects of Anatomy and Physiology were verbatim copies of the language and other details of certain pages of Grey's Anatomy and Chakravarti's 'Aids to Human Physiology'. It does not appear that they formed this opinion with regard to all the candidates appearing in the said examination. It also appears from the report of the examiner in Anatomy which is Annexure "B1" that it is only some of the candidates but not all who could not answer the questions set in the theoretical examination in their oral examination.
(3.) In course of the hearing, the mark sheet of the candidates who appeared in the June term examination in Anatomy was produced before the Court and it appears therefrom that the petitioner whose roll number was 42 obtained the total mark of 134 in the theoretical paper out of 200 and he secured 75 per cent, marks in the oral examination and 105 out of 200 in practical examination. It is, therefore clear that the petitioner was certainly not one of those candidates who, according to the report of the examiner in Anatomy, could not answer the questions set in the theoretical paper in his oral examination, for, had it been so, it is unlikely that he would secure 75 per cent, marks in the oral examination, it is true as is evident from the mark sheet that a large number of students did not tare well in the oral examination but there are a few including the petitioner (it may be their number does not exceed 7) who did fare well in the oral examination.;