PRAMILA DEI Vs. SECRETARY BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner appeared in the Matriculation Examination at the Banki Bidapitha Centre, Banki, held by the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education (opposite party) on 16th to 20th of March, 1971. On 17-5-1971 the opposite party addressed the letter (Annexure 1) to the petitioner. For appreciation of the points in issue tile entire letter is extracted hereunder:" BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION. ORISSA, CUTTACK-1 No. Exam. (C)-1822/Dt. 17-5-71 H.S./71. From Shri P.C. Roy, M.A. (Com) Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, Cuttack-1 To Smt. Pramila Dei, Roll No.M.7619 Daughter of Antaryami Rout, Vill./P.O. Banki District - Cuttack. It has been reported by the Centre Superintendent of B.K. Bidyapitha, Banki Centre, that you have adopted unfair means at the Annual High School Certificate Examination, 1971 in respect of Sanskrit - I paper on 17-3-1971. In this connection, I am directed to say that the following charges have been made against you. (1) While the Annual High School Certificate Examination, 1971 was in progress at the above Centre, you were found in possession of a small piece of manuscript paper which you brought into the Examination Hall with evident intention of copying from it/them. You were warned before the commencement of the Examination not to bring any paper other than your Admit Card into the Examination Hall. (2) You were found copying from it/them. (3) You have never followed the instructions printed on the back side of your Admit Card in the Examination at all. (4) x x x x x (5) x x x x x (6) You refused to give a written statement and your Admit Card to the Centre Superintendent when you were asked to do so. In case you want a personal hearing in the matter, you are required to inform about it along with your explanation in writing so that the date and time of hearing will be communicated to you. If you have anything to say, you are required to do so before 25-5-1971 positively as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against you. If no reply is received from you by the above date in the office of the undersigned, it will be taken for granted that you have nothing to say in defence and the matter will be disposed of and orders passed ex parte. Sd. 14-5-71 Secretary." On 23-5-1971 the petitioner sent the reply (Annexure 2). THE letter is extracted as follows:

(2.) THE only contention advanced by Mr. Lingaraj Rath on behalf of the petitioner is that there was no inquiry made by the opposite party in presence of the petitioner when she denied the allegation of malpractice. Thus, the principles of natural justice were violated and the ultimate order (Annexure 3) is liable to be quashed.

(3.) AIR 1969 Orissa 206, (Rabindra Kumar Sahu v. Utkal University) is a decision of Barman, C.J. and Patra, J. This case was correctly decided on its own facts though the law should have been more precisely stated. The only point worth noticing in this case is the observation of their Lordships that the denial of the petitioner's prayer to summon the Invigilator to cross-examine him is not denial of reasonable opportunity and does not offend the principles of natural justice. In its bald form this observation is directly contrary to Fernando's case already referred to. In this particular case, however, the refusal to allow cross-examination did not affect the merits of the decision as the petitioner had confessed the fact of his resorting to malpractice before the Centre Superintendent.