Shivam Education Society and anr. vs Union of India and ors.

"PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS

1.

That the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed as the petitioner has not come with clean hands. The petitioner school was earlier accredited in 2014 and was also made an examination center for public examination. The school was found guilty of misconduct of mass-copying. Show cause notice was given and the Principal of the school had admitted the misconduct of mass-copying and disqualified for 3 years and the liberty was given by AAC to apply afresh which would be considered at that relevant time. The petitioner has misstated that the school was not aware as to why the same was de-accreditated in 2015 whereas there was an admission by the Principal of the school about the misconduct of mass-copying and apologized for the same.

REPLY ON MERITS:

1 XXX XXX XXX

2 XXX XXX XXX

3 XXX XXX XXX

4 XXX XXX XXX

5.

With regard to this Pars, it is denied that the school had fulfilled all the norms for accreditation with NIOS yet the school was granted provisional accreditation to the society in 2014 with certain conditions to act as study center for NIOS learners. The school i.e. Shivam Senior Secondary School was fixed as examination center during October/November 2014 and the same was booked under UFM/mass copying. On finding that the large scale mass copying was done in the examination center. Accordingly, the Show Cause Notice was issued for involvement of unfair means in various examinations of NIOS and replies were received. The Principal of the school had admitted and regretted for the misconduct of examination and stated that in future they will conduct the examination in fair manner. A summary of the 52 accredited institutions in which unfair means was surfaced was prepared and placed before the Accreditation Advisory Committee vide Item No.104-ACD/12. In the summary at Item No.33, the gist was placed with regard to the school of the petitioner where the Principal had regretted for misconduct of the examination. A copy of the summary of the compilation of 52 accredited institutions is enclosed herewith as Annexure R-1. Accordingly, the AAC had recommended to disaccreditate all the 52 accredited institutions as they were black listed by the unfair means committee of evaluation department after seeing all the relevant records of the all accredited institutions and ordered they may apply afresh for accreditation after minimum penalty of 3 years from the date of dis-accreditation. The recommendation of the AAC is attached herewith as Annexure R-2. In the meeting of AAC under Item No.110-Acad/07, it was observed and decided that 'During the 104th meeting of AAC held on 21 April, 2015, it was recommended that since the number of Als in the states of Haryana and Delhi were large in number and the enrolment of the learners was also not according to the capacity of Als, as such the applications received from these two states should not be considered for accreditation as Als. RDs were also informed not to accept applications from these two states. Further, under Item No.110-Acad/07, 'the AAC approved the proposal to renew the accreditation of academic study centres (Als) in CBSE affiliated schools in the States of Haryana and Delhi and again on 13.05.2022, decision was taken not to give fresh accreditations to the applicants from the school affiliated to Haryana Board. The relevant extract AAC under the Item No.123rd (Second Round)/Acad/07 dated 13.05.2022 is attached herewith as Annexure R-3. Thus, no fresh applications for accreditation would be considered from the schools affiliated to Haryana Board at present (that time).

6.

That the contents of this Para are wrong and denied. The school of the petitioner-society was guilty of misconduct of mass-copying. Show Cause Notice was issued and the Principal of the school had admitted the same and regretted for the misconduct in the examination and further stated that they would conduct the examination in fair manner. Because of the misconduct, the accreditation was withdrawn and accordingly, the AAC had recommended for disaccreditation of all the institutions which were booked for unfair means vide Annexure R-2. The Principal of the school had admitted the guilt and had also apologized for the misconduct committed during public examination and same was informed under RTI stated vide Annexure P-4.

7.

That as per the decision of AAC, the punishment was for 3 years from the date of disaccreditation, however, the petitioner-society could apply afresh for accreditation after 3 years but it was not an automatic right. On the representation-Annexure P-5, the matter was considered and it was informed that AAC has already taken a decision not to give accreditation afresh even to the schools affiliated by Haryana School Education Board. The school of the petitioner was guilty of misconduct of mass-copying.

8.

With regard to this Para, it is not automatic that the school should be accreditated, be made study center and examination center. The answering-respondent are sanguine of the fairness of the public examination of 10th and 10+2 and if the study center is indulging in the unfair means practice, then the school has no inherent right to be accreditated from NIOS.

9.

That the contents of this Para are matter of record.

10.

With regard to this Para, the passing of the order dated 19.12.2023 is matter of record. The school was made examination center for October/November 2014 and the school was indulge in mass-copying and accordingly, the school was black listed for 3 years and it was ordered that the school could apply for accreditation after 3 years and that was to be considered by the AAC in terms of the present scenario.

11 & 12. That the contents of these Paras have not been correctly stated. The school has indulged in mass-copying in the public examination in October/November 2014 and was blacklisted for 3 years due to unfair means/mass-copying. Accordingly, in terms of the AAC recommendations, the school could apply fresh after minimum period of 3 years from the date of the de-accreditation and that could be considered in accordance with the current scenario. The answering-respondents are duty bound to consider the fairness of the public examination and to consider the past act of the school of unfair means and also keeping the number of students registered with the answering-respondents. It was not feasible to re-accreditate and to make it a public examination center.

13.

That the contents of this Para are not correctly stated. The school of the petitioner was guilty of misconduct of mass-copying and thus it was de-accreditated with a punishment of 3 years. Liberty was given to apply afresh in the existing circumstances. The AAC has considered and observed that the institutions in Haryana and Delhi NCR are quite large in numbers and moreover the enrolment of NIOS learners in the existing Als is not according to the capacity of accreditated institutions. Accordingly, the applications from Haryana and Delhi NCR be not considered for accreditation."