SBCWP NO.8167/07. { 1 } IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R 1) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8167/2007. Ms.Kumari Lalita & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. 2) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8166/2007. Abdul Basit Ghori & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. 3) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5055/2007. Naveen Kumar Saini & Ors. Vs. Board of Secondary Education & Ors. Date of Order : 16/1/2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Shri Jai Kumar Yadav, Shri Deepak Asopa & Shri Sumer Singh for the petitioners. Shri Prahlad Singh for the respondents. **** BY THE COURT:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) The petitioners have filed these writ petitions to challenge the order passed by the respondents whereby, their examinations of Secondary/Senior Secondary has been cancelled on the ground that the petitioners have copied many answers SBCWP NO.8167/07. { 2 } and thereby it was found to be case of mass copying thus, the impugned-order was passed. 3) Out of other three sets of cases, two are pertaining to Secondary School and Senior Secondary School examinations however, for the reason that issue of all these cases are similar thus, they were taken together and are being decided by this common order. 4) The grievance of the petitioners is that it is not a case where any adverse report was given by the Invigilator stating that the petitioners have copied the answers or used any unfair means, despite respondents had proceeded in the matter and passed the final order. It was further submitted that even if the respondents were to proceed in the matter then also, without there being any material to the effect of using any unfair means by the petitioners, the impugned-order could not have been passed moreso when the answer of many questions could have been the same being objective type questions. It was lastly submitted that even it was a case of mass copying then also the respondents should not have cancelled SBCWP NO.8167/07. { 3 } the entire examination of the petitioners but could have cancelled the examination of a particular paper in which they were found to have copied some of the answers. It was thus prayed that the impugned-order whereby the examination was cancelled be set-aside. 5) Learned counsel for the respondents submits that it is a serious case where authorities found that students have copied many answers and it is not that the matter was taken up in an enquiry directly rather for initiation of enquiry, the matter was first considered by the result committee and, thereafter, also an opinion was sought from the expers of the subject concerned. After completion of this preliminary enquiry, when it was found that it seems to be a matter of mass copying of the answers, the petitioners were charge-sheeted and after providing them full opportunity of hearing that the impugned order was passed. It was further stated that even to see the genuineness of the reasons given by the petitioners to show that they were not indulged in any unfair means, asked to give answer of the questions during the course of enquiry but none of SBCWP NO.8167/07. { 4 } the petitioners could answer any of the questions which otherwise were answered and found to have been copied. 6) The present matter was taken up for consideration by this court on the earlier date also and on that date a direction was given to the respondents to bring the copies in which answer of the students are found word to word same so that the counsel for the petitioners may also see the answer- sheets for their satisfaction and verification. Pursuant to the direction, the copies were brought in the court and were shown to the learned counsel for the petitioners apart from the fact that earlier those answer-sheets were shown to the students during the course of enquiry and then also it was found that many of the answers are word to word same. Perusal of the copies, it was found that answers given therein are word to word same and are not otherwise objective type answers. In view of the facts above, the thing come out is that many of the answers given by the petitioners are found to be one and the same. Now, the questions remain as to whether in such SBCWP NO.8167/07. { 5 } circumstances, it can be said to be a case of mass copying or not and if it is to be a case of mass copying, what punishment could have been awarded by the respondents. 7) The perusal of the record as well as the material placed before this court which otherwise was also shown to the counsel for the petitioners, makes it clear that when word to word answers of many of the questions are same then, it can safely be said that such things can happen only when students copied the questions from each other and not otherwise or in alternative, such answers are copied from one and the same material, otherwise it seems to be almost an impossibility to have answered the many questions word to word same hence, the finding recorded by the authorities concerned is not only proper but it was recorded only after providing full opportunity and personal hearing to the petitioners and considering the entire material which was placed before the enquiring committee, thus that finding needs no interference. 8) Now comes to the issue of punishment. In that SBCWP NO.8167/07. { 6 } regard, learned counsel for the petitioners referred two judgments to show that even in the similar case the Board has right to cancel the result of the paper in which it was found that there was mass copying of the answers. In that regard, reference of the judgment of Karnataka High Court is given reported in K.Krishnappa and another etc.etc. Vs. Registrar (Evaluation) Bangalore University : 1992 AIEC 149. The other judgment which the counsel for the petitioners cited is the judgment of the Apex Court in Rajesh Kumar and another Vs. Institute of Engineers (India) : (1997) 6 SCC 674. 9) In the first judgment, the Karnataka High Court held that in the case of mass copying by the students, cancellation of examination of all students at the centre and decision to hold re-examination of five papers is not proper. It may be clarified here that in the present matter, examination of all the students of the centre has not been cancelled but the cancellation of the examination is only of the students who were found involved in mass copying thus, the judgment of the Karnataka High Court has no SBCWP NO.8167/07. { 7 } application in the present matter. Though, it has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in one case, examination has been cancelled for the entire centre and in other case, it is only of 19 students has been cancelled out of 52 students on the center. Suffice it to say that cancellation of the examination is only of the students who were found involved in mass copying whether it was 19 students at one centre or all the students of the other centre and thereby, cancellation of examination is limited to the students who were found involved in mass copying and not of the centre itself irrespective of the fact whether the students of the said centre were involved in mass copying or not. Therefore, the judgment of the Karnataka High Court is not applicable on the facts of the present case. 10) So far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar and anr. (supra) is concerned, the said case is again on different issues and facts, which are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Thus, both the judgments cited by SBCWP NO.8167/07. { 8 } the learned counsel for the petitioners are of no assistance on the issue involved in the present matter. 11) Learned counsel for the respondents has referred clause 21.5 to show that as per the said rules, the authorities concerned are competent to cancel the result of entire examination. Perusal of Clause 21.5 of the Rules shows that the authorities concerned can cancel the examination but rule further provides that the authorities can cancel the result of the paper in which it was found that students were involved in copying of the answers. 12) Looking to the fact that the discretion lies with the respondents in regard to passing of the order of punishment as per rules, this court cannot interfere unless it shown to be case of malafide. Looking to the fact that not only many of the answers were found to have copied word to word and those copies were shown to the petitioners as well as counsel for the petitioners for their satisfaction which otherwise shows that it is a case of mass copying of many of the answers, the punishment order SBCWP NO.8167/07. { 9 } passed by the impugned order cannot be interfered with. 13) However, taking into consideration the request made by the counsel for the petitioners that atleast respondents be directed to re-consider the issue and if possible to take a lenient view, though this court has declined to interfere in the matter however, it is directed that if any representation is made by the petitioners then, the respondents are directed to take a view in the matter and if it is found that they can take a lenient view and can alter the punishment already passed then, they may take a decision in the matter and convey to the petitioners within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. With the aforesaid observation, these writ petitions are disposed of. (M.N. BHANDARI), J. anil