- (1.) Raman Preet Singh through present petition filed by him under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeks writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash order, Annexure P-5, passed by the Unfair Means Cases Committee vide which he was held guilty under Regulation 9(a) of the Punjab School Education Board (Penalties for misconduct and use of unfair means in the Examination) Regulations, 1979 and consequently writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent-Board to declare his result of Matriculation examination taken by him in March, 1992.
(2.) The facts of the case reveal that petitioner had appeared in the matriculation examination conducted by respondent-Board in March, 1992. On April 20, 1992 he was busy in doing his Science paper. When a large number of students had left the examination hall after delivering their answer books to the Supervisor Incharge, he (Supervisor Incharge) asked the remaining students to come closer to front side. Petitioner and other students, who were attempting their papers while sitting on a mat (TAT), slipped ahead and continued doing their papers after occupying the seats vacated by the candidates who had already left. Meanwhile, the Flying Squad raided the examination centre. It lifted a paper from under the TAT from some distance of the changed seat of petitioner regarding which he had no knowledge. The Flying Squad demanded answer sheet of petitioner, who have the same thinking that it would be returned after comparing with the recovered paper. However, the Flying Squad neither inquired anything from him nor did return his answer book. He was also not given second answer sheet to attempt remaining questions. He received a show-cause notice from the respondent-Board regarding use of unfair means. The allegation made against him was that a printed paper was recovered from his possession by the Flying Squad during the course of examination of Science paper on April 20, 1992. He was charged under Section 9(a) of the 1979. Regulation for mala fide possession of incriminating material and was asked to give his written explanation by October 7, 1992. After the procedure of enquiry was over, he was punished vide order, Annexure P-5, in the manner indicated above and it is this order which has been challenged in this petition.
(3.) Though there are number of points that have been taken in the petition but learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments only to one point i.e. discrimination against the petitioner in imposing penalty upon him. It is specifically pleaded in para 10 of the petition that in some other cases the candidates, who were charged under Regulation 9(a) have been given lesser punishment by cancelling only one paper in which unfair means were used whereas result of whole examination of petitioner has been cancelled thereby giving excessive punishment to him. The particulars of the candidates, who have been given punishment by cancelling the paper concerned, are as follows :- JUDGEMENT_162_LAWS(P&H)12_1993.html This assertion of petition has not been disputed in the written statement filed by respondent-Board. It is of some significance to mention that even as per the report of UMC Committee petitioner had not made use of incriminating material that was stated to have been found from his possession. That being so, petitioner could not be, even in the matter of punishment, treated differently and given the punishment of cancelling his whole examination. Mr. Gur Rattan Pal Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-Board has not been able to defend the action of respondent but for stating that the allegation made in para 10 of the petition is vague, on any meaningful ground.;