VYAS, J. - (1.) IN this bunch of writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 27. 7. 2007 (Annex. 3) and further prayed for a direction to the respondents to declare their results in accordance with the papers performed by them in Secondary School Examination.
(2.) IN all these writ petitions similar point is involved, therefore, for convenience, they are being disposed of by this common order and facts of S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5166/2007 (INderjeet Singh Meena vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) are taken into consideration. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner appeared in the examination of Secondary School conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer for academic session 2006- 2007 at Govt. Secondary School, Itunda District Bhilwara during the period 15. 3. 2007 to 30. 3. 2007. According to the petitioner, he is having excellent academic record as he secured 79% marks in the Board Examination of Class VIII held in the year 2005. In the Secondary School Examination also, he appeared with due preparation and dedication and he was hopeful of getting good percentage of marks. But, all of a sudden, he received a communication dated 15. 6. 2007 from the Board of Secondary Education alleging therein that as per the report of examiner he was found to be using unfair means for five questions during examination of II paper of the Social Science. In the said communication, three possible unfair means were alleged to have been used while solving the said questions, which are as follows: (i) Taken external assistance/somebody has dictated the answers to them or (ii) Use some cheating paper containing answers to the problems or (iii) Copied answers from some Pass Book/text Books. While narrating the above three points of unfair means, it is further alleged that according to rules of the Board, the said action is punishable and the case of the petitioner along with relevant record was placed before the Result Committee and the Committee found the said charge of using unfair means proved. Upon which, the Committee decided to inform the petitioner to appear before the Committee to clarify his stand and he was directed to send his explanation by 23. 6. 2007 through registered letter or if the petitioner is desirous to avail opportunity of hearing then he may appear on 25. 6. 2007 at 11. 00 am in the office of Inquiry Officer with all relevant record. In pursuance of said communication, the petitioner appeared before the Inquiry Officer & submitted his explanation. The original document/answer sheets and reports were shown to him. On 25. 6. 2007, when petitioner appeared before the Inquiry Officer, he realized that opportunity of personal hearing is nothing but an eyewash or an empty formality because batch of three students were called at a time and during interaction some of students were directed to solve the questions as appeared in original examination and some of the students were given fresh question papers. The petitioner also prayed for giving fresh questions because he was fully prepared and having a good academic background but his request was not acceded to. According to the petitioner after appearing before the Inquiry Officer, he was firm that he will be awarded good marks and his result will be declared but to his utter surprise he was served with an order, whereby, he was found guilty of using unfair means in the Board Examination 2007 and he was penalized with cancellation of his examination for the year 2007. According to the petitioner, by this cancellation order of examination, the Board has spoiled his career and by this action he has suffered one year loss of his studies purely on presumption and imagination of the Board, which cannot be permitted to stand. In cancelling the examination of 2007, the Board has not even thought proper to disclose the reasons for arriving at such a perverse conclusion.
(3.) IT is also pointed out by the petitioner that in all 56 students were taken to the task by way of issuing similar notice, but after completion of inquiry, result of 29 students was declared and they were exonerated by the Committee, but petitioner along with 26 other students were penalized by cancelling their examination of Secondary School for the year 2006-2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner while attacking upon the order impugned contended that similar kind of notices were issued to the students, whose results had been declared but case of the petitioner was not considered at par with those students, who were similarly situated namely; Shri Vishnu Kumar Vaishnav, Sangeeta Meena and Piyush Kumar Maheshwari. Upon these students also same allegations were levelled but no punishment was inflicted and their results were declared. IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondents have not shown any reason or ground to justify their action. IT is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Board has passed the order of cancellation in a mechanical manner which is evident from the fact that the order is in printed/typed form and similar type of orders have been issued in case of other students also. The Board has not even mentioned that what evidence is on record for levelling such allegation of using unfair means. While inviting the attention of the Court towards the notice dated 15. 6. 2007, it is argued that at the time of issuing notice, the Board itself was not sure about type of unfair means used by the petitioner so also notice was issued on three grounds which are altogether different and not connected with each other and that too in the form of printed letter. Upon perusal of notice it does not disclose any reason or evidence upon which the Board has arrived at with prima facie finding that it is a case of use of which unfair means. When Board itself was not firm at the time of issuing notice then it is obvious that petitioner was indulged in a false case. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that all the three allegations cannot be levelled at a time because if a students is found to have used unfair means then he may be guilty of one of the allegations mentioned in the notice, but in the present case by simply ticking on three points, the Board has issued notice of using unfair means in the examination. It is also argued that the Board itself has printed all the possible modes of unfair means in the examination by making five points and word `or' has been used between all these points/allegations, which clearly shows that all these points/allegations are different from each other. But, in a mechanical manner, the Board has issued the notice dated 15. 6. 2007 by levelling three allegations at a time out of five printed points. ;