1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER 1.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1116/2010 Kapil Kumar & ors Vs Principal Secretary,Technical Edu. & ors 2.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1119/2010 Rahul Singh & ors Vs Principal Secretary,Technical Edu & ors 3.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1122/2010 Lokendra Singh & ors Vs Principal Secretary, Tech.Edu. & ors 4.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1117/2010 Ashok Kumar & ors Vs Principal Secretary, Tech.Edu. & ors 5.SB Civil Writ Petition No.1118/2010 Devendra & ors Vs Principal Secretary, Tech.Edu. & ors 6.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1120/2010 Sanjay Kumar & ors Vs Principal Secretary, Tech. Edu. & ors 7.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1121/2010 Prashant Kumar & ors Vs Principal Secretary, Tech.Edu. & ors 25.11.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr Abhay Jain - for the petitioners Mr SC Purohit – Mr Rajneesh Gupta Mr HV Nandwana - for respondents BY THE COURT: Since on same set of facts similar relief has been claimed by the petitioners, all these writ petitions have been heard together and are decided by this common order. 2 These matters pertain to different subjects under Vocational training programmes. The examinations were conducted in the month of August, 2009, however, subsequently, it was cancelled mainly on the ground that students indulged in mass copying. Perusal of the report submitted by the committee shows that in most of the subjects allegations of mass copying are found to be substantiated based on reasons given therein. Most of the answers in series and by students sitting in a row were found to be exactly the same. Even if some body has given wrong answer, it is adopted by others. Looking to the aforesaid factual background, I do not find any ground to interfere in the decision taken by the respondents. When allegations of mass copying were minutely examined by the committee there is no occasion for this court to interfere in such factual aspects. This is more so when petitioners were given opportunity of hearing by issuing show cause notices. The committee has not made recommendations on 24.12.2009, rather it was constituted on the aforesaid date thus petitioners have wrongly taken the aforesaid to be the date of report. Looking to all these circumstances and considering the judgments cited at the Bar, I am not inclined to interfere in the 3 decision taken by the respondents other than cancellation of result of four subjects namely; (1) Trade – Welder, subject - Engineering Drawing(committee report at sub clause 3), (2) Trade - Fitter, Subject – Engineering Drawing (committee report at sub clause 5), (3) Trade – Electrician, subject – Engineering Drawing (committee report at sub clause 7) and (4) Trade – Mechanic Diesel, subject – Engineering Drawing (committee report at sub clause 10). Perusal of committee report at sub clauses 3, 5, 7 and 10 shows that allegations of mass copying have not been proved completely for aforesaid subjects. Other than discrepancies in sitting arrangements nothing material is found so as to justify cancellation of result in aforesaid four subjects at sub-clauses 3, 5, 7 and 10 of the committee report. Accordingly, for four subjects indicated above, respondents' action cannot be approved. Looking to the aforesaid, all the writ petitions are disposed of with the directions to the respondents to declare result of students in (1) Trade – Welder, subject - Engineering Drawing (committee report at sub clause 3), (2) Trade - Fitter, Subject – Engineering Drawing (committee report at sub clause 5), (3) Trade – Electrician, subject – Engineering Drawing (committee report at sub clause 7) and (4)Trade – Mechanic Diesel, subject – Engineering Drawing (committee report at sub clause 10) where 4 allegations of mass copying have not been found proved completely. For rest of the subjects cancellation of examination is not interfered with. (MN Bhandari) J. bnsharma