INDRA METHI Vs. BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION RAJASTHAN AJMER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE 29 writ petitions by respective 29 petitioners are directed against a 'vigyapati' dated 24-8-1973 of the Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan, hereinafter called the Board, cancelling the examination of the petitioners for the year 1973 and further debarring some of the petitioners to appear at the ensuing Secondary Examination to be held in the year 1974. They shall be decided by a common order.

(2.) THE material facts which are almost identical and are also not in dispute in all these petitions briefly stated are these: THE Examination for the Secondary Arts was held by the Board at its various centres in March/april, 1973, one of the centre for the aforesaid examination being the Rajkiya Kanya Uch Madhyamik Vidhyalaya, Beawar, which shall be hereinafter referred to as the Beawar centre. THE result of the said examination was declared on 14th of July, 1973 but the result of the petitioners was with-held and not announced. On 16-7-1973 a show cause notice in identical terms was served on the petitioners whose result was earlier with held. Under the show cause notice it was averred that from the examiner's report and other sources it has been found that the student appearing at the Beawar centre had resorted to unfair means at the examination. It was further averred that from the answer books of the elementary arithmetic of the aforesaid petitioners it is evident that the petitioners had resorted to unfair means at the examination. Under the terms of the said notices the petitioners were called upon to submit their reply to the show cause notice before 21st of July, 1973, and further to appear before the Jaanch Adhikari' on 24th/25th July, 1973, in the premises of Rajkiya Patel Uch Madhyamik Vidhyalaya Beawar. It is also not in dispute that before the show cause notice was issued, the Board had received the examiner's report complaining of the unfair means used by the petitioners. On 4-7-1973 the results committee, a competent body under Rajasthan Secondary Regulation (hereinafter called the Regulation) to deal with the disciplinary matters on the ground of unfair means had appointed an expert Shri M. C. Goyel the senior teacher in the mathematics to submit his report on the answer books in the arithmetic paper to the committee THE expert submitted his report on 4 7-1973 wherein he had opined that the petitioners are guilty of unfair means by either copying from the copy of another or allowing another to copy from her copy. THE petitioners submitted their reply to the aforesaid show cause notices which were sent by registered post. In the reply the petitioners repudiated the allegations levelled against them in the show cause notice and inter alia asserted that they had never indulged in unfair means. It was further complained therein that the show cause notice did not specify the charges and the same are vague. On 24/25th July, 1973, some of the petitioners appeared before the enquiry officer who recorded their statements. In the statement each of the petitioners appears to have been asked as to whether many of the answers in arithmetic tallied with the answer of another examinee. THE answers of petitioners were obtained after showing them the answer book of another candidate with whose answer the petitioners' answer tallied and the petitioners had admitted that many of the answers did tally with those of the another examinee. Each of the petitioners denied that they had copied or allowed any person to copy It was further stated that the petitioners have nothing to say further. On 24-8-1973 each of the petitioners received a cyclostyled copy of a 'vigyapati' purporting to have been issued by the Pariksha Niyantrik (the controller of the examination) whereby she was informed that her examination result of the Secondary Examination has been cancelled. In cases of petitioners Indra Methi (99183), Resham Babel (99282), Kum. Pushpalata (99266 ). Tripta Joshi (76285), Kaushlaya Gupta (92199), Geeta Ghaudhary (99174), Indra Gupta (99182), Suman jain (99319) & Narbada Gehlot (76268) a further penalty was imposed debarring them from appearing in the ensuing examination to be held in the year 1974. This 'vigyapati' was published in pursuance of the decision of the results committee, competent body under the Rajasthan Secondary Education Regulation 1957. On receiving this intimation each of the petitioners issued a notice to the Chairman of the Board complaining against the vague nature of the charges and denial of the reasonable opportunity of being heard and praved for reconsidering the decision. On 4 9-1973 the petitioners asked for the furnishing of the copies of various documents which seem to have been used by results committee but the copies were denied by the non-petitioners. THE petitioners have therefore come up in this Court by way of an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India principally contending that the order of the Board is void being violative of principles of natural justice as the petitioners were never informed of the precise charge and were denied of reasonable opportunity inasmuchas the materials which were used against them were not confronted/disclosed to them and further that the petitioners were never made aware of the precise case which they had to meet. On these grounds the petitioners have, therefore, asked for quashing the impugned order.

(3.) MR. M. D. Purohit, however, argued that the enquiries in cases of such nature should not be equated to criminal trials in the ordinary courts of law and the probabilities and circumstamtial evidence may in the circumstances of the case be sufficient to pass verdict against to delinquent examinee. In this regard he laid stress on H. S. & I. E. Board. U P. vs. Bagleshwar (10), Bihar S. E Board vs. Subhaschandra (11), Prem Prakash vs. Punjab University (12) and B. Louis vs. Nagpur University (13 ). It was further urged by MR. Purohit that the court should be slow to interfere with the decisions of the domestic tribunals appointed by the educational bodies like the Board as the High Court in such cases is not sitting in appeal over the decision in question and its jurisdiction is limited. It is true that the enquiry before the domestic tribunal cannot be and should not be equated with the trial in the courts of law. It is also true that the High Court does not sit in appeal over the decisions of the educational bodies and its jurisdiction is rather limited. But at the same time it is to be remembered that the enquiry before the domestic tribunals in the matter of disciplinary actions is of a quasi judicial character and has to be undertaken in accordance with the principles of natural justice vide Board of High School vs. Ghanshyam (4 ). What is the extent of operation of this principle has to be decided on the test as to whether the observance of the rule was necessary for a just decision on the facts of that case. Indeed as stated earlier the aim of rule of natural justice is to secure justice or to prevent miscarriage of justice. At this stage it will be profitable to notice some cases which have bearing on the point before me. In Board of High School vs. Ghanshyam (4) it has been held that the educational body dealing with the disciplinary matter against the examinee must follow the principles of natural justice and give adequate notice to the delinquent examinee of the case which he has to meet. In that case no notice was at all given to the delinquent examinee and, therefore, the order cancelling the examination was quashed. In H. S. & I. E. Board, U. P. vs. Bageleshwar (l0) it has been held that the enquiry committee set up by the Education Boards to enquire into unfair means adopted by the examinee at a particular examination has to decide all relevant questions in the light of evidence adduced before them. It has also been said in that case that direct evidence in such cases might not be available and the question will have to be considered in the light of probabilities and circumstantial evidence. It has also been observed that the problem which the educational institutions have to face from time to time is a serious problem and the court should be slow to interfere with the decisions of the domestic tribunals. At the same time it has been emphasized that the tribunals in such cases must be fair and students against whom charges are framed must be given adequate opportunity to defend themselves and in holding such enquiries the tribunals must scrupulously follow rules of natural iustice although it would not be reasonable to import into these enquiries considerations which govern criminal trials in the ordinary courts of law. In Ahmadkabir vs. Principal Medical College Kozhikode (5) it has been laid down that the institutions like college conducting domestic enquiry are under obligation to disclose to the delinquent student as to what materials authorities are going to use against the delinquent student. The disclosure of material and confrontation of the same to the student is the integral part of the defence in absence of which the delinquent cannot make an effective defence. This case ofcourse does not relate to the adoption of unfair means at the examination but none-the-less relates to disciplinary action against a student and the principle of natural justice imported therein is equally applicable to the disciplinary cases against the examinee also. In S. C. Paul vs. Calcutta University (8) it has been laid down that the specific charges should be informed to the student and further the evidence to be used against the student is to be disclosed to him. To the same effect is the dictum laid down in M. Hussan vs. Secy. B. H. S. & I. Education U. P. (9 ). In Ranjeet Singh vs. University of Rajasthan (14) the Division Bench of this Court has held that the examinee must be given an opportunity of presenting his case before that organ of the University who has to award the punishment. I need not deal with other authorities cited by MR Bhargava as they are not to the point As regards the authorities cited by MR. M. D. Purohit T may say at the out set that the authorities Bihar S. C. Board vs. Subhash Chandra (11) and B. Louis vs. Nagpur University (13) are of no assistance as they relate to the case of mass copying where it is not necessary to give specific charges to each of the delinquent examinee. This brings me to the consideration of Prem Prakash vs. Punjab University (12) cited by MR. Purohit. In that case also it has been held that an examinee must be adequately informed of the case he has to meet and should be given full opportunity to meet it. In proper cases if the information given is not adequate, examinee should ask for further information and normally if he makes a request in this behalf the university would supply him the necessary particulars of details of the evidence.