AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Lingaraja Rath, J.—The appellant ''who was the 4th respondent in the Writ Petition No. 8658 of 1990 out of which the appeal arises has preferred the appeal assailing the judgment of the learned single Judge directing the Controller of Examinations, Andhra University, respondent No. 2, herein, and also the Principal, Maharaj''s College for Men, Vizianagaram (respondent No. 2 in the writ petition and respondent No. 3 to the appeal) not to declare the result of the appellant for B.Sc., course and to cancel his admission in the College. The appellant who also aggrieved by the fact that the judgment confirmed the order of respondent No. 1 declaring the appellant not to have passed the Intermediate Examination and to have failed in the examination and directing the appellant to return the Intermediate Pass Certificate and directing respondent No. 3 to return the Intermediate Pass Certificate of the appellant if he was having the certificate in his custody.
The facts of the case, as has been rightly stated by the learned single Judge, are very peculiar. They disclose a deeper malady in the Examination system as to have become the victim of corruption which obviously could not have been practised without the active connivance of the persons connected with the. conduct of the examinations. Adoption of such practice not only is made with achieving benefits to the candidates who are not otherwise entitled to it, but also as a consequence it causes havoc to the career of the deserving candidates who are made to suffer trauma of failure in spite of their actual success.
The appellant studied in the 4th respondent-Junior College, Intermediate Course during the years 1985-87. While writing the examinations for the course in March, 1987 with the Registered No. 015864 allotted to him, another candidate Kum. M. Swdrupa was having the seat in front of him and had the registered No. 015862. Papers-II of Botany, Physics and Chemistry written by M. Swarupa were tampered with to erase her registered number 015862 therefrom and instead to overwrite that of the appellant''s registered number 015864 thereon. On the basis of the valuation made of the answer scripts of M. Swarupa, the appellant was declared to have passed the Intermediate Public Examination while the real candidate M. Swarupa, was declared to have failed since the registered number in the answer scripts of the appellant was shown as that of Swarupa i.e., 015864. On an application made by M. Swarupa for personal identification of her answer papers where she pointed out that the answers were not of her writing and that those answers were the writing of the appellant and that the actual answer papers of her had been tampered with by changing the registered number. The specimen handwritings of the appellant as well as that of Swarupa were obtained by the Principal of the 4th respondent-College and in the enquiry the handwriting of the appellant tallied with the answer scripts which had the registered number 015862 and the handwriting of Swarupa tallied with the scripts which had the registered number 015864. Convinced that malpractice had been resorted to, the Board issued orders for M. Swarupa to have paired the Intermediate Public Examination and the appellant to have failed memo was sent to the appellant to surrender Certificate. Writ Petition No. 15390 of 1987 was filed by the appellant which was disposed of on 7-10-1988 and issue of notice to the appellant and holding an enquiry in the matter after which appropriate action could be taken. The Controller of Examinations of the Board issued a memo on 14-10-1988, in pursuance of the judgment asking for the explanation of the appellant. But he did not file any show-cause. Subsequently mernos were also issued, but the appellant did not submit any explanation. It is only on 10-2-1989 that the appellant submitted his explanation adopting the plea of ignorance without giving any details. A detailed order was passed after considering the entire material including the explanation of the appellant, on 25-2-1989 rejecting his explanation and holding that he could not be considered to have passed the Intermediate Public Examination held In March, 1987 and hence was not eligible to continue his studies in the B.Sc. course. A communication was issued to the 3rd respondent-College to cancel the appellant''s admission and to return the original Intermediate Pass Certificate issued to the appellant. Copies of the proceedings were also sent to the Registrar, Andhra University and the Controller of Examinations. Andhra University for taking necessary action. As no actions were taken the Roard filed W.P. No. 8658 of 1990 which having been allowed the appeal has been preferred.
The further facts which need mention are that while the proceedings were being taken the appellant filed O.S. No. 45 of 1989 in the Court of the District Munsif, Sompeta, challenging the order dated 25-2-1989 restraining the 3rd respondent-College and the 1st respondent-Board from interfering with his continuation of studies in B.Sc., course. The District Munsif passed orders on 30-3-1989 permitting the appellant to continue in B.Sc., course though no order of injunction was passed against the Intermediate Board. The Board preferred I.A. No. 24 of 1990 for vacating the interim order dated 30-3-1989. But the District Munsif did not pass any final orders. The Board thereafter filed I. A. No. 40 of 1990 for temporary injunction to restrain the appellant from appearing for the Public Examination of B.Sc., Final year which was to be held in April, 1990, but the petition was dismissed on 2-4-1990 as a result of which the appellant took the Final Year Examination of B.Sc., held in May, 1990 at which point of time the writ peiition was filed by the 1st respondent-Board. The writ petition was admitted on 11-7-1990 and on the same day an interim direction was''issued in WPMP No. 10950 of 1990 to the Controller of Examinations not to declare the result of the appellant in B.Sc. The Writ Petition having been allowed on 8-9-1992 this appeal has been preferred, but the result of the appellant has not been published.
Sri N. V. Ranganadham, learned Counsel for the appellant has raised the submission of the direction of the Court in the earlier Writ Petition No. 15390 of 1987, directing notice to be issued to the appellant and holding the enquiry, not to have been complied with for which the action taken by the Board and the consequential actions thereafter are unwarranted having been taken behind his back without affording him proper opportunity to defend himself. It is the submission that the first notice issued on 14-10-1988 by the Board directing the appellant to submit his explanation on or before 31-10-1988 was received by the appellant only on 29-10-1988 for which he had no adequate time to submit the reply and that the notices sent thereafter were not notices properly called, but were final orders prejudging the issue.
The learned single Judge while agreeing that the notice having been received by the appellant on 29-10-1988 asking him to snow-cause by 31-10-1988 was not a notice affording proper time and that the subsequent communications on 29-11-1988 and 20-1-1989 also did not meet the requirements as in the first one no time had been given for submission of the explanation and it had been written thereof it being presumed that the appellant had no explanation to offer and that the action was being taken on the basis of the available record, and the second one also indicated as if it was a final order passed and not a show-cause notice calling for explanation. Even while so remarking, the learned single Judge held that since the appellant submitted his explanation on 10-2-1989 considering which very detailed order has been, passed on 25-2-1989, it cannot be said that the appellant had no opportunity to explain his conduct. He held the order passed on 25-2-1989 to be a valid order as the appellant had no explanation to offer except pleading innocence without in any way explaining the circumstances appearing against him. The learned single Judge also took pains to verify the earlier marks obtained by the appellant and found (hat throughout he has been an average student" and had failed in various subjects. The learned single Judge was of the view that looking into the whole matter it was apparent that somebody connected with the conduct of Examinations like the Invigilator or the Superintendent of Examinations had a hand in the tampering of the answer papers.
Even though Sri N. V. Ranganadham has perused the case with tenacity on the question of lack of opportunity to the appellant yet on the detailed consideration of the facts we find ourselves in complete agreement with the learned single Judge,
The observations of Lord Harman, J. in Byrne v. Kinematograph Renters Society Ltd. (1958) 2 All ER 579, were quoted with approval in the decision in Suresh Koshy George Vs. University of Kerala and Others, as under (at p. 202 of AIR):
"What, then, are the requirements of natural justice in a case of this kind? First, I think that the person accused should know the nature of the accusation made; secondly that he should be given an opportunity to state his case; and thirdly, of course, that the Tribunal should act in good faith. I do not think that there really is anything more."
Natural justice is not a made-to-order ''A'' formula which has to be fitted to all situations with an iron-bound uniformity. The appliof the principle may vary from case to case though within well-defined parameters, cation The principle of Audi Alteram Partem essentially consists of making the allegations against a person known to him, giving him an opportunity to state his defence and thereafter to consider his defence in the light of the circumstances and pass an order germane to the considerations.
It was observed in the much cited decision A.K. Kraipak and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, as under(atp. 157 of AIR):
"The rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. What particular role of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the framework of the law under which the enquiry is held and the constitution of the Tribunal or body of persons appointed for that purpose. Whenever a complaint is made before a court that some principle of natural justice had been contravened the Court has to decide whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just decision on the facts of that case."
In the case before us the appellant well knew the allegations against him since the very time of the disposal of the earlier Writ Petition No. 15390 of 1987. He himself came before the Court in the suit, O.S. No. 45 of 1989 and the matter has been contested from time to time. Thus no pan of the allegations against him ever remained beyond his knowledge. It was for him to explain his conduct when the notice reached him. There is no denying that in the subsequent notices, though they are couched in a defective manner, yet the appellant had been granted opportunity to explain his conduct. He failed to do so and merely pleaded innocence. Natural justice is never meant to be a technical line of defence to nullify actions taken against a delinquent. The import and the purport of natural justice is real and of substance and it is never meant to satisfy only a technical form. We hence are of the considered view that sufficient opportunity had been given to the appellant and that there is no infirmity in the decision taken either by the Board or by the learned single Judge.
The appeal has no merit and is dismissed with costs of Rs. 500/-.
Appeal dismissed.