Jugraj Singh vs Punjab School Education Board

This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions 16467, 18611, 18612 and 18837 of 1991, and 2004 of 1992, the facts involved in these petitions being identical. Reference hereinafter shall be made to the facts in Civil Writ Petition No. 16467 of 1991.

Challenge herein is to the order, Annexure P-3 cancelling the result of the petitioner of 10 + 2 examination conducted by the Punjab School Education Board (for short the Board) in April, 1991 and further disqualifying him from appearing during the next examination.

The petitioner appeared in 10 + 2 examination conducted by the Board in April, 1991. His result was declared as ''Later'' as in the meantime, a complaint of mass copying in the subjects of Physics, Mathematics, and Chemistry had been received in the office of the Board. The matter was examined by the Board and as a result of scrutiny, it was found that the allegations of mass copying was wrong. The Board, however detected the cases of 28 students for taking action and ultimately took action against 12 of them. The petitioner is one of these 12 candidates ultimately, action was taken against the petitioner after serving a show cause notice and affording him an opportunity of being heard by the Unfair Means Committee (for short the Committee). The petitioner appeared before the Committee on September 25, 1991 and was asked to attempt question No. XIV (b) which he did, but some mistakes mostly of spelling were noticed. The Committee found that the petitioner copied question Nos. 1(a) (b), IV (b) and XIV (a)(b) from the material, a photostat copy of which had been received with the complaint. The Committee took action under Regulations 9 (a), 10 and 11(1) of the Punjab Education Board (Penalties for Misconduct and Use of Unfair Means in the Matriculation and Higher Secondary Examinations) Regulations, 1979 (for short the Regulations). Consequently, order Annexure P-3 was passed where by the result of the petitioner for April, 1991 examination was cancelled and he was disqualified from appearing in next examination as well. It is this order passed by the Committee that has been challenged in this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

In the reply filed by the Board, it is stated that the case of the petitioner is covered by Regulation 11 (i) and alternatively, reliance was placed on Regulation 19.

Regulations 9(a), 10, ll(i) and 19 are reproduced below for facility of reference :--

"9. If during an examination, a candidate is found :

(a) in possession of a paper, book or note, or (b) to (f) xxxxx his result for that examination shall be cancelled he may be disqualified from appearing in any examination of the Board for a period which may extend to three consecutive examinations.

Provided that if a candidate is found having in his possession or accessible to him papers, book(s) or notes due to inadvertence and which could be of assistance to him but has not made use of them, he may be debarred from passing in that paper as a disciplinary measure and without any implication of moral turpitude.

Possession of solution of question -- If a candidate is found in possession of solution to a question set in the question paper or a part thereof, received through the connivance of any inside or outside agency, except any other candidate sitting in the examination hall, his result for that examination shall be cancelled and he shall be disqualified from appearing in any examination of the Board for a period which may extend to three consecutive examinations

Copy or rendering help in copying -- If during the course of an examination a candidate is found :

(i) having copied or indulging in copying from any paper, book or note, or (ii) to (iv) xxxxx his result for that examination shall be cancelled, and he shall be disqualified from appearing in any examination of the Board for a period which may extend to three consecutive examinations.

If an answer book of a candidate shows or it is otherwise established that he has received or attempted to receive help from any source or in any manner or has given help to or attempted to give help to another candidate in any manner, his result for that examination shall be cancelled and he shall be disqualified from appearing in any examination of the Board for a period which may extend to three consecutive examinations."

Admittedly, no paper, book or note from which the petitioner is alleged to have copied was recovered from his possession during the course of examination held in April, 1991. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Regulations 9, 10 and 11(i) could be invoked by the respondent-Board only when any piece of paper which was helpful to the petitioner, or from which he copied, is recovered from the possession of a candidate during the course of examination and that too, relating to the subject of the examination. In support of his submission, reliance was placed on Sanjiv Sharma v, Punjab School Education Board, a decision of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in Civil Writ Petition 17830 of 1991, decided on January 29, 1992.

I have considered the matter and am of the view that the matter in controversy is squarely covered by the aforesaid Division Bench decision. The only distinction brought out by Mr. Bakshi, learned counsel for the Board is that in this case the petitioner was afforded an opportunity when he appeared before the Committee on September 25, 1991 to attempt one of the disputed questions, namely, question No. XIV(b), and his attempt showed that he committed three or four blunders in spelling which convinced the Committee that answers must have been copied. This, however, will make no difference. Out of the mistakes pointed out, one mistake of spelling is common both in the answer sheet and the attempt before the Committee. Another mistake is that he did not write ''four'' in his attempt which he had used in the original script and the other two words had been wrongly spelt though these had been correctly spelt earlier. Apart from it, the Committee found that the answer attempted by the petitioner was wrong. But this is not correct. Both the attempts of the petitioner were shown to me during the course of arguments, but it could not be pointed out that the answer was wrong. It is perhaps in these circumstances, that it was stated, "the petitioner committed 3 or 4 blunders in spelling etc. which convinced them that the answers must have been copied", in para 10 of the written statement and the words, "answer attempted by him was found to be wrong and the same had been placed on the file. Even the spelling of the words, quadrn, systematically and access in the answers attempted by him before the committee are not correct" used by the Committee in its order, Annexure P-3, have not been shown to be correct. Thus, the petitioner even if asked to attempt the questions by the Committee would make no difference. In all other aspects, the decision of the Division Bench in Sanjiv Sharma''s case (supra) covers the present case as well. The case before the Division Bench also related to this very complaint, and the allegations against the petitioner of that case were precisely the same.

Learned counsel for the Board ultimately relied upon Regulation 19 and submitted that even if the case was not covered by Regulations 9, 10 and 11(i), it falls within the ambit of Regulation 19. This aspect of the matter was also considered by the Division Bench in the case refered to above, but it did not agree with the counsel for the Board as in the opinion of the Division Bench, the Committee was required to record a finding on evidence of receiving or attempting to receive help from any source, which evidence and finding was found missing. In the present case as well, no such finding is shown to have been recorded.

Learned counsel for the Board referred to a decision reported as Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. K.S. Gandhi (1991) 2 SCT 611 : AIR 1991 SCW 879) and another decision in Dr. Dattatraya Mahadev Nadkarni (since deceased by his L. Rs.) Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, ), but these decisions have no bearing to the facts of the present case.

For the above reasons the writ petition is allowed and order Annexure P-3 is quashed. The Board is directed to declare the result of the petitioner at a very early date. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

Civil Writ Petitions 18611, 18612, 18837 of 1991 and 2004 of 1992 are also allowed in the above terms.

Petition allowed.