Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by petitioner Arun Mishra, a student, whose Senior Secondary Examination, 2012 has been cancelled along with that of two other students namely; Ms. Archana Meena and Aditya Khandal by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer on account of adoption of unfair means by them. Facts of the case are that when result of the petitioner and other two candidates was not declared, they approached the Principal of their school viz. Vivekanand Public Senior Secondary Tonk. Principal wrote a letter to the Deputy Director (Secrecy) of the Board of Secondary Education of Rajasthan, Ajmer on 16.5.2012 to supply the reason why their result has been withheld. Deputy Director (Secrecy) by letter dated 23.5.2012 informed the Principal that an enquiry was going on into the complaint made by examiner with regard to these three students and their result would be known only after completion of such enquiry. The Principal again wrote a letter on 4.6.2012 for declaring such result citing the reason of mental agony of students. It was thereafter that the Assistant Director (Secrecy), Board of Secondary Education for Rajasthan, Ajmer vide his letter dated 25.6.2012 sent an information to the petitioner that he along with other two students has been found guilty of using unfair means and copying answers with each other. He should therefore submit his explanation before the enquiry officer by 6.7.2012 and shall appear in person before the enquiry officer on 11.7.2012 at 11.00 AM. It was conveyed that if the petitioner and other students want to examine their answer books, the same would be shown to them and they would be free to produce before the enquiry officer any class notes, pass books or other text books on the basis of which they have attempted the answers, in support of their case. If they fail to submit their reply and explanation and fail to appear before the enquiry officer, the matter may be decided ex -parte against them. Petitioner sent a reply to the aforesaid notice on 1.7.2012 denying the allegation of copying and contending that he has attempted all the questions on the basis of his own knowledge and ability. He secured 91.33% marks in Secondary Examination and was a meritorious student and therefore his result may be declared. He expressed willingness to appear before the enquiry officer on 11.7.2012. The respondents, however, by their notification dated 27.7.2012 cancelled the whole examination of the petitioner and the two other students.
(2.) SHRI Banwari Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner is highly meritorious student, which is evident from the fact that he has passed the secondary examination with first division and secured 91.33% marks, whereas the other students namely Ms. Archana Meena and Aditya Khandal have respectively secured only 67% & 81.50% marks. He is therefore much more meritorious than those two students, therefore, it cannot be believed that he would copy from them. Learned counsel submitted that the conclusion of the enquiry officer that petitioner and for that matter, all the three students have copied with each other, is merely based on inference and presumption as there is no evidence to that effect. Learned counsel invited attention of the Court towards number of certificates which the petitioner has produced on record showing his participation in different kinds of extra curricular activities and contending that petitioner bears a high morale character and that allegation of copying against him is totally baseless. It would cause immense injustice to an otherwise meritorious student if his entire examination of 2012 is cancelled. At the maximum, the respondent Board should have cancelled the result of Chemistry subject, requiring the petitioner to appear in supplementary examination of that subject or could have awarded marks on proportionate basis looking to his performance in other subjects. Petitioner has secured high marks even in other subjects of the examination in question. Shri Banwari Sharma, learned counsel submits that if the decision of respondents is upheld, one precious year of petitioner, who is otherwise a meritorious student, would go waste and petitioner would be penalized for no fault of him. It is submitted that even if at all other students copied from the answer book of the petitioner, it is the fault of the Invigilator, therefore action should be taken against the Invigilator by the respondent -board rather than penalizing petitioner.
(3.) PER contra, Shri Reashm Bhargava, learned counsel for the respondents argued that in the process of evaluating the answer books, the Examiner detected a case of cheating/copying, therefore, result of the petitioner and other two students whose answers verbatim tallied with each other, was withheld. When the enquiry was made by the Principal of petitioner's school as to why result of petitioner and other two students was withheld, he was informed about the pendency of enquiry into the matter. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 25.6.2012 calling upon him to submit his explanation and also appear in person. The enquiry officer has thereafter came to the conclusion that it was a case of adopting unfair means and copying and therefore the examination of the petitioner along with two students was cancelled. Their answer sheets can be produced even for perusal of the Court. It is argued that what is worth considering is not whether the correct and incorrect answers are verbatim the same, but the steps taken in reaching to a particular calculation and also using brackets etc. also tally with each other in the answer copies of all three students. Learned counsel in support of his arguments relied on the judgments of Supreme Court in Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. Allahabad & Anr. vs. Bagleshwar Prasad & Anr., : AIR 1966 SC 875, Prem Prakash Kaluniya vs. The Punjab University & Ors., : (1973) 3 SCC 424, Jagdish Prasad vs. Smt. Angoori Devi, : AIR 1984 SC 1447, judgement of Andhra Pradesh High Court in K. Santha Kumari & Anr. etc. vs. Sri Krishnadave Raja University & Anr., : 1996 (7) SLR 523 and judgement of Allahabad High Court in Triambak Pati Tripathi vs. The Board of High School & Intermediate Education, U.P. Allahabad, : AIR 1973 Allahabad 1.;