Gupta, J. - (1.) The petitioner appeared at the Secondary (Arts) Examination held in the month of March, 1976 of the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan from the Government Higher Secondary School, Gajsinghpura (Sriganganagar) Centre. The result of the petitioner was withheld, while results of the other candidates who appeared at the aforesaid Secondary Examination of the Board were announced in June 1976. Earlier to that, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner had copied the answer to question No. 4 of Part-B of the English Second Paper from the book "Secondary Structural English" by R.K. Gupta. The Board was of the opinion that either the petitioner had received outside help or he employed unlawful means in doing so and called upon the petitioner to show cause why action be not taken against him. The petitioner submitted a reply to this notice in which he denied the allegation and took the plea that he had crammed the answer in respect of question No. 4 from the aforesaid book. The Board appointed an Enquiry Officer who called upon the petitioner to appear before him. The petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer on July 15, 1976 and the statement of the petitioner was recorded. The petitioner again denied having copied the answer in respect of question No. 4, but the petitioner was unable to do so on the ground that he did not at that stage remember the answer written by him, but he could reproduce the same answer if a day's time was allowed to him. The petitioner also stated in his aforesaid statement dated July 15, 1976 that he did not desire to look into any document. The explanation offered by the petitioner did not find favour with the Board. The Board came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of using unfair means at the examination. The petitioner's examination for the year 1976 was, therefore, cancelled and further he was debarred from appearing at the examination of the Board in the year 1977. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition is this Court praying the order of the Board dated 24th July 1976, be quashed.
(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not given an opportunity of cross examining the Supervisor; the Invigilator & the Examiner nor he was shown the requisite papers, including the Head Examiner's report, and thus there was a breach of the principles of natural justice. The respondent's case is that the petitioner was given full opportunity of producing, evidence and fair hearing was afforded to him and the Board, after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, came to the conclusion 'that the petitioner 'had employed unlawful means and copied the answer to question No. 4 of English Second Paper in his answer book, either from the book "Secondary Structural English', by R.K. Gupta or from some paper containing the answer to the said question from that book. It has denied that here was any breach of the Principles of natural justice in the present case.
(3.) So far as the question of supplying copies of the Invigilator's report and the Head Examiner's report, to the petitioner is concerned, it may be sufficient to observe that in his statement recorded on July 15, 1976 (Ex. R/2) the petitioner himself stated that he did not desire to look into any document. Thus at the inquiry stage, the petitioner did not desire to look into the documents in question and he cannot now, in this Court, make a grouse that the Head, Examiner's report and the Invigilator's report were not shown to him or copies thereof were not supplied to him. There is, however, no doubt that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses produced on behalf of the Board viz the Invigilator, the Supervisor and the Head Examiner. It is not the case of any one of the parties that the book or any paper was recovered from the person of the petitioner. The Board, by a comparison of the answer given by the petitioner in respect of question No. 4 in his answer to book of English Second Paper with the answer recorded in the aforesaid book "Secondary Structural English", came to the conclusion that the petitioner had copied the answer in respect of question No. 4 either from the book or from a paper in which the answer was copied from that book. The answer book of the petitioner was placed before me by the learned counsel for the Board. The book "Secondary Structural English by R.K. Gupta (1973 Edition) was also of placed before me. I have compared the answer to question 4 as given by the petitioner in his answer, book and as given in the Test Exercise No. 217 in the aforesaid hook and after a comparison of the two I am constrained to observe that the answer given by the petitioner in his answer book completely tallies with the answer recorded in the aforesaid book. The remarkable similarity of the answer given in the petitioner's answer book with the answer given in the book the written by R.K. Gupta leaves no doubt in mind that the petitioner has copied the answer to question No 4 either from the aforesaid book or from a paper in which the answer from that book had been copied out. Merely because the book or the paper was not recorded from the possession of the petitioner cannot be of much significance. The Board did not accept the explanation offered by the petitioner that he had crammed answer to question No. 4 and it is not for this Court to interfere in the discretion exercised by the Board in this matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of this Court in Indra Methi v. Board of Secondary Education, 1976 WLN 158 , wherein his Lordship Joshi J. has laid down the requirements of natural justice in the matter of cancellation of the examination of a student and a decision of Kerala High Court in Ahmad Kabir v. Principal, Medical College, Kozhikode, AIR 1967 Kerala 121 . It was held in the last-mentioned case that the examinee had a right to know on what material the authorities were going to take a decision. There is no doubt that the material on which the decision is based in the present case was fully disclosed to the petitioner in the notice Ex. 1 and the petitioner thereafter expressly waived his right to look into the relevant documents. There is also no doubt that there is one infirmity in the procedure followed by the Board in the present case, namely, that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses viz, the Head Examiner, the Investigator and the Supervisor. However, in my view, having looked into the answer book of the petitioner and having compared the answer given by him to question No. 4 with the Test Exercise No. 217 given in the book "Secondary Structural English" by R.K. Gupta. I am convinced that no useful purpose would be served by sending the matter back to the Board. A perusal of the answers to question No. 4 and the other questions given by the petitioner in his answer book of English Second Paper leaves no doubt is my mind that the answer to question No. 4 was occupied from the book concerned. The petitioner was also afforded an opportunity to reproduce the answer before the Enquire Officer but he was unable to do so. I am, therefore, of the view that it would not be of much consequence to remand the case back to the Board.;