BHARGAVA, J. - (1.) ALL these writ petitions involve similar facts and therefore, are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) TAKING the facts of Writ Petition No. 5154 of 1991 Satya Narain vs. Board of Secondary Education.
(3.) AS per the facts mentioned in the writ petition, the petitioner passed his Secondary School Examination in first division in the year 1989 and appeared in Senior Higher Secondary (Academic) Examination; 1991 with Roll No. 8514, conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as the respondent Board). The centre of examination was Vivekanand Secondary School, Dausa. The petitioner received a communication dated 19.7.91 in which the petitioner was alleged to have copied from answer books of some other examinees in one paper viz., Biology -II Part A and was shown to be guilty of using unfair means and that the Results Committee had found a prima facie case and therefore, the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation by 2 -8 -1991, and present himself before the Enquiry Officer on 7.8.91. The petitioner was also directed to produce any documentary evidence on 7 -8 -91. The petitioner submitted his written explanation in reply to the said notice and also appeared before the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education where the answer books of the petitioner were also shown along with the answer book of a student bearing Roll No. 8398. Thereafter, a news appeared in Daily Navajyoti dated 12.8.1991 that the petitioner was found guilty of mal - practice by the respondent Board and therefore, his examination was cancelled. The petitioner wrote a letter to the respondent Board but did not receive any reply. Hence, he filed the present writ petition on 4.9.1991. Notices were issued as to why the writ petition should not be admitted and disposed of. A reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent Board on 27.11.1991 in which they have submitted that the Examiner who checked the answer books of Chemistry Paper -1 part -A and Part -B and Mathematics Paper -1 Part B pointed out in his report that the petitioner had copied certain answers from other candidates bearing Roll Nos. 8509, 8513 and 8398. The Results Committee prima facie found that the petitioner was guilty and therefore, a show cause notice was issued stating that the petitioner had used unfair means in answering the above questions and he was asked to appear for personal hearing on 7.8.91. The petitioner was given personal hearing. The petitioner was given personal hearing and the entire record including the report of the Examiner his answer books as well as the answer books of other roll numbers were shown to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a statement in his own handwriting before the Enquiry Officer. After giving full opportunity of hearing & after taking into consideration the whole material, the Enquiry Officer found that the charges levelled against the petitioner in respect of Chemistry Paper -I part -A and B and Mathematics Paper -I Part -B were proved and the petitioner was guilty of copying in respect of Chemistry Paper -1, Part -A with Roll No. 8509 only and Mathematics Paper -I part -B with Roll No. 8513. The report of the Enquiry Officer as well as all other material was considered by the Results Committee and it decided to cancel the examination of the petitioner held in 1991, and the said decision was published in the newspaper and also communicated to the school through which the petitioner did appear. Arguments have been heard and record of the case has -been perused. Learned counsel for the respondent Board has shown to me the report of the Enquiry Officer as also the copies of the petitioner and other students from which copying is alleged to have been made. He has placed before me the instructions issued by the Board to the Examiners and Centre Supdts. He has placed reliance on an unreported decision of this Court in Anay Kumar vs. The Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer (1) and Dhurnath vs. Board of Secondary Education and another (2). In both these cases, the writ petition had been dismissed because the court found that the principles of natural justice were followed and the petitioner was given opportunity to explain his conduct. It was held that the Court should be slow in interfering in such matters in the larger interest of public.;