Narendra Kumar, D. vs Director of Pre-university Board and Others

These two petitions are disposed of by the following common order as they involve the same questions of facts and also the questions of law, at the stage of preliminary hearing after notice to respondents and after hearing the counsel for both the parties.

The facts leading to these cases are as follows:

Petitioners are students of the 3rd respondent V.K.J. Junior College of Siraguppa in Bellary District. They are students of second year P.U.C. for the academic year 81-82 having completed their first year P.U.C. course in the same institution in the academic year 1980-81. Petitioners have submitted their applications through the 3rd respondent Principal for taking P.U.C. Final year examination for the academic year 1981-82 to be held in April 1982. The 1st respondent-Director of Pre-University Board Bangalore had fixed the date of examination to commence from 5.4.1982. However, there was a report of leakage of question papers at some other examination cen- tres and therefore the examination came to be postponed and was scheduled to commence on 27.4.1982 and was further postponed to 11.5.1982. Petitioners have alleged that they are entitled to take the examination in all the papers. They have already obtained their admission tickets in respect of the same. When all this was transpiring, the petitioners heard that the, 1st respondent had directed that the petitioners be debarred from taking the, examinations by communicating the same to the 2nd respondent-Chief Superintendent of Pre-University Examinations, V.K.J. Junior College, of which the petitioners are students. On hearing that such an order was made, the petitioners approached this Court questioning the legality of such an order on the ground that no opportunity was given to them before they were debarred from taking the examination and that they were not heard and therefore the entire action initiated was violative of the principles of natural justice. They also sought for an interim order of this Court to take up second year P.U.C. examinations. That interim order was granted and petitioners have taken the examination since. But the Court has directed that the results be withheld.

Respondent-1 has, entered appearance through the learned Government Pleader. The learned Government Pleader has made available the records of the case. He has submitted from the Bar that criminal investigation for prosecuting the petitioners and others is on hand and it was in that circumstance they received a telex message, from the Deputy Inspector General of Police at Bangalore to the effect that the petitioners and a few others had been arrested in connection with theft of question papers from the premises of V.K.J. Junior college after overpowering the watchman physically and in that circumstance the 1st respondent passed the order debarring the petitioners. But the learned Government Pleader has not denied on the basis of the records that no opportunity was given to the petitioners before passing the order debarring the petitioners from taking up the examination. He contended that there were special circumstances in this case which compelled the action being taken to prevent the students from taking the examination.

No doubt there are circumstances where action has to be taken first and thereafter an opportunity may be given to a person who is aggrieved by such an action. But this is not one such. To condemn the students without hearing them merely because the police had arrested them does not conclusively prove m any manner that they were really guilty of any charge of breaking into the college by force and causing theft of question papers. It is a matter to be determined by judicial process in accordance with law or at least the 1st respondent should have given notice to the students as to why they should not be debarred for whatever they were suspected to have done. This right is inherent in the 1st respondent as the Director of Pre-University Board in accordance with the regulations.

The fact that the petitioners were not heard before the impugned action was taken by the 1st respondent Director is not in dispute. Since the decision rendered in the case of State of Orissa v. Binapani, AIR 1967 SC 1269, a number of decisions have been rendered by the High Courts and the Supreme Court that none should be punished or penalised without an opportunity being given to defend the charge in respect of which the penalty has been imposed. Once it is admitted that the Director did not afford an opportunity to the petitioners before passing the order debarring the students from taking the examination that order ab initio suffered from patent illegality in violation of the constitutional rights of the petitioners under Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore such an order cannot be sustained by this Court however grave the offence may be. Even if a Magistrate has witnessed the commission of a crime, nevertheless the person who has committed, the crime is entitled to trial before he can be punished for the crime which he has committed. If that is the position, mere students who are alleged to have committed theft of question papers by breaking into the college and on suspicion of the same they have been arrested cannot be held to be guilty of that offence, till proved as such in accordance with law either by trial in a Magistrate''s Court or by a domestic enquiry initiated by the 1st respondent.

In the absence of these two, the order passed by the 1st respondent was at all times illegal and therefore the petitioners are entitled; to a declaration that they were duly qualified and entitled to take up the examination in question for second year P.U.C. course for the academic year 1981-82.

The action is held to be illegal and the petitioners have taken the examination by an interim order of this Court. The 1st respondent/Director is directed to announce the results of the examination relating to the petitioners.

This decision does not in any way affect any proceedings pending in criminal court or any proceedings contemplated by the Director against the petitioners as long as they are in accordance with law.

The results will be announced forthwith on receipt of this order.

Rule will accordingly issue and be made absolute.

No costs.