WP(C) 3685/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY O R D E R Cancellation of the candidature of the petitioner’s son in the High School Leavi ng Certificate examination (for short hereafter referred to as the HSLC) 2010, c onducted by the Board of Secondary Education Assam, (hereafter for short also re ferred to as the Board/SEBA), is the animating cause for seeking the panacean in tervention of this Court in the exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction unde r Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is the mother of the candidate. 01. I have heard Mr. AM Mazumdar, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. D Borgohain, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. TC Chutia, learned Standing Counsel for the SEBA and Mr. B Gogoi, learned State Counsel, Assam. Also heard Mr. MK M isra, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, Assam and Mr. B Sinha, lea rned counsel for the respondent No. 5. 02. The build up of facts is scripted in the pleadings of the partie s. The petitioner’s case is that her son (for short referred to be candidate) w as a regular student of Shishu Niketan High School, Hailakandi. His father, the respondent No. 5, Md. Sirajul Islam was the Principal of Public H.S. School, Hai lakandi. As the petitioner desired that the candidate studies in her husband’s school he having been promoted to Class IX in the year 2008, was got admitted by her in Public HS School, Hailakandi. Inspite of his admission with the Public H.S. School, Hailakandi, he however continued at his first school i.e. Shishu Ni ketan High School, Hailakandi. As required under the relevant regulations, the petitioner’s son, while in the 9th standard, applied for his registration with t he Board from the Shishu Niketan High School, Hailakandi. However, the petition er though, could not persuade him attend the school in the Public HS School, Hai lakandi, decided to have him take the HSLC examination as a student of that scho ol and thus, without the knowledge of her husband she submitted his application for registration with the Board as a student of the Public H.S School, Hailakand i as well. According to the petitioner, when the above fact came to the knowled ge of her husband, he immediately, by his letter dated 17.09.2008 informed the S ecretary of the Board that the registration application form in respect of the c andidate be cancelled as he was not a regular student of the Public HS School, H ailakandi. 03. Meanwhile, on the basis of the application submitted by the cand idate for registration from Shishu Niketan High School, Hailakandi, the same was acted upon by the Board and a registration certificate bearing No.12V/0828/0054 82/08 of 2008 was issued in his name. As his application for cancellation of his registration as a student from Public H.S. School, Hailakandi was not cancelled , as requested vide the letter No. 17.09.2008, another registration certificate bearing No. 12R/0024/002431/08 of 2008 was also issued by the Board in the name of the petitioner’s son as a student of that school. Subsequent thereto, the Pr incipal of the Public HS School, Hailakandi, by his letter dated 19.11.2009 agai n requested the Secretary of the Board to treat the said registration certificat e as non est, as the student had not attended any class or examination from his school. 04. On the basis of the registration certificate as well as the admi t card issued to the petitioner’s son as a student of Shishu Niketan High School , Hailakandi, the candidate duly appeared in the HSLC examination, which commenc ed from 19.02.2010. The Secretary of the Board, thereafter, by his letter dated 30.04.2010 informed the Principal, Public HS School, Hailakandi that the Class IX registration certificate of the candidate had been cancelled. This was also communicated to the Inspector of Schools, Hailakandi District Circle, Hailakandi , by the said authority by his letter dated 13.05.2010. The said communications of the Secretary of the Board revealed that the action had been taken on the ba sis of the letter dated 19.11.2009 of the Principal of the Public HS School, Hai lakandi. By a letter of the even date i.e. 13.05.2010, the Secretary of the Boa rd, however, required the Principal to explain as to why the forms and statement s of a candidate, who had not attended his school, had been forwarded for regist ration. This was complied with by the Principal of Public HS School, Hailakandi by his letter dated 26.05.2010, contending, inter alia, that all forms and stat ements of the students of Class IX of the School had been forwarded for registra tion assuming the correctness of the inputs and the steps taken by the concerned LD Assistant, without, however, personally verifying of records, having been re ndered unable for his ill health and heavy work load. The steps taken for exclu sion/cancellation of the candidate’s registration by the letter dated 17.09.2008 and 19.11.2009 were reiterated. In the above background, the results of the HSLC Examination, 2010, though, decl ared on 29.05.201, that of the petitioner’s son/candidate was withhold. By noti fication dated 29.05.2010, the Board announced that the candidates, whose HSLC r esults had been kept withhold under other reasons were directed to appear for personal hearing before the Assistant Academic Officer of SEBA along with the or iginal testimonials as mentioned. In response thereto, the petitioner’s son in a prescribed format applied for declaration of his results through the Headmaster , Shishu Niketan High School, Hailakandi. The candidate also appeared before th e aforementioned officer of SEBA and produced his necessary credentials. It was , thereafter, that by the impugned notification dated 10.06.2010 his candidature was cancelled along with other candidates for gross illegalities committed by t he Heads of institutions and officers in presenting the candidates for the HSLC/ AHM, 2010, as established in the inquiry report submitted by the Deputy Commissi oner, Hailakandi following a probe into the issue in association with the Inspec tor of Schools, Hailakandi District Circle, Hailakandi. 05. The petitioner has contended that neither she nor her husband as well as the candidate had the knowledge that a registration certificate had bee n issued relatable to the Public H.S. School, Hailakandi inspite of the applicat ion dated 17.09.2008 of the Principal of the Public HS School, Hailakandi for ex clusion/cancellation thereof. The impugned decision has been impeached inter ali a, on the ground of being impermissible under the Board of Secondary Education, Assam Regulations for Conduct of Boards Examinations (hereinafter for short refe rred to as the Regulations) as well as being vitiated by unfairness in action, t he candidate not having been furnished with a copy of the report on which his ca ndidature had been cancelled. It has been asserted that during 09.11.2009 and 2 1.12.2009, the petitioner’s husband was on leave, as he had been away to perform Haj. 06. The Secretary of the SEBA in his affidavit, while confirming tha t the candidate was registered for the HSLC Examination 2010, as a student from both the schools, though, he had not studied in Public HS School, Hailakandi, ha s denied the receipt of the letter dated 17.09.2008 stated to have been addresse d to the SEBA by the respondent No. 5. The answering respondent has asserted tha t a student while, he/she studying in class IX has to fill up his/her particular s in his/her hand writing in the prescribed form to be signed by him/her for app earing in the HSLC/AHM examination under the SEBA. The application so filled up by the student is required to be counter signed by the Principal of his/her ins titution. The answering respondent, therefore, has stoutly denied the lack of kn owledge of the petitioner’s husband as the Principal of the Public HS School, Ha ilakandi about the preparation and submission of his (petitioner’s son) applicat ion for registration as a student from his school for the aforementioned examina tion. While underlining that the issuance of two admit/registration cards to a p articular candidate for a examination tantamounts to gross illegality, the respo ndent has pleaded that the letter dated 12.05.2010 of the Inspector of Schools, Hailakandi District Circle, Hailakandi, revealed that the one dated 19.11.2009 b y the Principal In-charge of Public HS School, Hailakandi, was not genuine as at that point of time the Assistant Inspector of Schools, HDC, Hailakandi Sri Shri SN Gayari was holding the said office. As the signature in the said letter dat ed 19.11.2009 was not of Sri SN Gayari and the document was construed to be a fo rged one, the order canceling the registration of the petitioner’s son as a cand idate from the Public HS School, Hailakandi, was cancelled/withdrawn. According to the respondent, the letter dated 13.05.2010 of the Principal Public HS School , Hailakandi furnishing the reasons for the anomaly, was considered unsatisfacto ry. That in response to several complaints of gross irregularities committed by the officer-in-charge of six examination centers and Headmaster/Principal of sev eral institutions in the district of Hailakandi, a inquiry was conducted by the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi along with the Inspector of Schools, Hailakandi, has been stated. The respondent has further averred that a report was submitted on 26.04.2010, before the Secretary of the Board, disclosing, inter alia, the n ames and particulars of the candidates who had obtained two registration and adm it cards, wherein, the name of the petitioner’s son was also included. The Exam ination Committee in his meeting held on 12.05.2010 recommended, on a scrutiny o f the said report that the candidature of the students involved be cancelled and the same having been approved by the Board on 18.05.2010, the impugned notifica tion dated 10.06.2010 was issued. The Board has endorsed the action taken to be valid and is in strict conformance with the prescriptions of the relevant regul ations of the Board. 07. The respondent No. 5, Md. Sirajul Islam Mazarbhuiya the father o f the candidate admitted in his affidavit that his son at his mother’s instance had applied for registration form two different schools. He, however, reiterate d to have sought cancellation of his son’s registration from the Public HS Schoo l, Hailakandi on 17.09.2008. He also confirmed the letter dated 19.11.2009 by t he then Principal, In-charge of the said school, reiterating the said request. T he deponent stated that during his leave period while he was away to perform Haj , one Mr. Nazrul Haque Borbhuiya was the academic In-charge of the said school, an arrangement approved by Shri SN Gayari, In-charge Inspector of Schools, Haila kandi District Circle, Hailakandi. The deponent stated that on the eve of his d eparture on leave, he, by order dated 26.10.2009, had assigned the academic char ge of the school to Mr. Nazrul Haque Barbhuiya, which was duly approved by the I n-charge Inspector of School Hailakandi District Circle, Hailakandi as above, an d also endorsed by the then Inspector of Schools, Hailakandi, Mr. AU Laskar. Th at a letter dated 12.06.2010 had been addressed by the deponent to the Secretary of the Board for review of the decision to cancel the annulment of the registra tion of his son, has also been averred. 08. The petitioner in her affidavit-in-reply has generally reiterate d the assertions made in the affidavit of her husband as outlined hereinabove. Mr. Mazumdar, in the backdrop of the contentious pleadings, has denounced the im pugned action of the Board to be arbitrary and not authorized by its regulations for conduct of its examination. According to the learned Senior counsel, none of the eventualities contemplated in Regulation 38 being existent in the facts a nd circumstances of the case, the results of the petitioner’s son could neither have been withhold nor cancelled as done. Pleading that the endeavour of the pe titioner to register her son as a candidate for the examination as a student of the school of which her husband was the Principal was only a bona fide parental gesture shorn of any ill-will, Mr. Mazumdar, has urged that the registration of the candidate from that school having been cancelled, on timely steps being take n by his father detecting the anomaly, the impugned decision was unwarranted. 09. Without prejudice to the above, the leaned Senior counsel has ar gued that in no case, the candidate ought to be penalized for supposed acts of i ndiscretion of his parents, he not having in any manner connived therewith. Tha t the candidate’s father on detecting the irregularity had brought it to the not ice of the concerned authority of the Board immediately, unassailably establishe d lack of mala fide on his part, he urged. As the candidate did not avail the r egistration/admit card issued for the Public HS School, Hailakandi, in course of the HSLC Examination, 2010, the alleged involvement of his, is wholly unfounded , he urged. Mr. Mazumdar insisted that in the face of the explanation vis-a-vis the signature on the letter dated 19.11.2009, the decision of the Board to reca ll the cancellation of the candidate’s registration for Public HS School, Hailak andi is patently unsustainable. According to the learned Senior counsel, not on ly the impugned decision of canceling the candidature of the petitioner’s son is indefensible in law, being impermissible under the Board’s regulation, it is al so violative of the principles of natural justice, as he had not been provided w ith a copy of the report and also an opportunity of representing against the sam e. 10. Mr. Chutia, in his vociferous response to the above and with ref erence to the various provisions of the Board’s regulation, has emphasised on th e validity of the action taken by the Board. Referring as well to the Regulatio ns for Registration students of High Schools and High Madrassas approved by the Board, the learned Standing Counsel has insisted that having regard to the proce dure laid down thereby and the role of the students as well as the Head of the i nstitution involved, the plea of bonafide, is wholly frivolous. As the petition er’s son and his father have actively participated to the process of obtaining t he registration certificate/admit card for Public HS School, Hailakandi, their c omplicity in the gross illegalities relatable thereto stand established on the f ace of the records, he urged. Mr. Chutia, has maintained that in the above prem ise, the letters dated 17.09.2008 and 09.11.2009 are of no consequence. While, seriously disputing the plea of the existence of academic In-charge Principal of the Public HS School, Hailakandi, during the period of leave of the petitioner’ s husband, Mr. Chutia, has sought to impress upon this Court that not only the r eport in the inquiry committee warranted the impugned decision, it was called fo r as a certitude of sanctity, probity and credibility of the Board as well as th e examinations conducted by it. 11. Mr. Sinha, while reiterating the pleaded stand of the respondent No. 5, the father of the candidate, has contended that the error of applying fo r the registration certificate of the candidate as a student of the Public HS Sc hool, Hailakandi was unintentional and that the impugned decision ought to be in terfered with to save one academic year of the candidate. 12. I have lent my conscious consideration to the pleadings and the arguments advanced. It is an admission by the petitioner, the mother of the Cand idate that while he (Candidate) was studying in Class IX in Shishu Niketan High School, Hailakandi, she had decided to have her son appear in the HSLC Examinati on, 2010 from Public HS School, Hailakandi of which at the relevant time her hus band was the Principal. Her pleaded case is that, in her said pursuit she could get her son’s application, for registration with SEBA, submitted as a student o f Public HS School Hailakandi without the knowledge of her husband. This stand of the petitioner is not only unconvincing, but also is obviously ine xplicable, as in terms of the Regulation For Registration Of Student Of High Sch ools and High Madrassas framed by SEBA, a candidate of the regular HSLC/AHM exam ination has to apply personally for registration in the prescribed application F orm No. 46 with necessary fee on and before 30th of June of the concerned year. The Head of the institution is to submit the application to the Board along wit h the statements in Form 50 with the registration fee on and before of the 31st July of the year. A photocopy of the statement of registration of students in C lass IX of 2008 of the Public HS School, Hailakandi, discloses the name of the p etitioner’s son at Sl. No. 74 with his signature thereon. The statement had bee n forwarded by the petitioner’s husband as the Principal of the said institution to SEBA for the registration of the students named therein. It passes one’s co mprehension, having regard to the procedure prescribed by the aforementioned reg ulation as to how the same could be without the knowledge or approval of the fat her of the Candidate. This plea is therefore, rejected. 13. The procedure ordained by the Board’s regulations as well as the statement of registration referred to hereinabove, makes it abundantly clear th at the parents as well as the candidate had played active roles in the preparato ry steps relating to his registration as a candidate for HSLC Examination, 2010 from Public HS School, Hailakandi. This was with the full knowledge of the peti tioner’s husband that the candidate at all relevant times had not attend classes in that school nor was a regular student thereof and that he was instead a cand idate as well from Shishu Niketan HS School, Hailakandi. The whole process unde rtaken by the parents and the candidate in getting his name registered with the Board as a student from the Public HS School, Hailakandi was a sham and in gross violation of the relevant provisions of its (Board) regulations pertaining ther eto. 14. The letters dated 17.09.2008 of the husband of the petitioner as a Principal of Public HS School, Hailakandi and that of the In-charge Principal dated 19.11.2009, significantly do not disclose the reason for such apparent mi stake in sending up the name and particulars of a candidate, who had neither att ended any class in that school i.e. Public HS School, Hailakandi, nor was a regu lar student thereof for the purpose of registration for appearing in the HSLC Ex amination 2010 under the Board. The petitioner’s husband in his letter dated 26 .05.2010, addressed to the Secretary of the Board, when called upon to explain t he reason, had remained contended by expressing profound regret therefor. As a Head of the institution accountable for the actions to be taken by him which irr efutably have to be in conformance with the regulations of the Board, in the opi nion of this Court, such a plea is risible. The explanation furnished vis-a-vis the signature in the letter dated 19.11.2009 does not mitigate the gravity of t he charge to any extent. 15. That the registration of a student, while in Class IX, is an ind ispensable criteria for eligibility is highlighted in clause 5 of the Regulation s. By clause 12 thereof, the Board has reserved to itself the right, notwithsta nding, the issuance of the admit card, to cancel the admission of any candidate to any examination, whether before, during or after the same for any reason, whi ch may appear to it to be sufficient. The limited eventualities contemplated in Clause 38 for the purpose of withholding of results or cancellation of examinat ion therefor, per se, would not denude the Board to take action akin thereto if the facts and circumstances warrant the same. In other words, the Board, in vie w of Clause 12, in particular, is empowered to cancel the admission of any candi date to any examination, even after the completion thereof in eventualities beyo nd those envisaged in Clause 38. 16. The pleadings of the Board and the documents annexed thereto rev eal that an inquiry report was submitted by a Committee constituted of the Deput y Commissioner of the concerned district and the Inspector of Schools, HDC, Hail akandi. The Committee in its meeting held on 16.04.2010, deliberated upon the r eport and concluded that the father of the candidate, amongst others, as the Off icer In-charge of the Hailakandi B Centre had maliciously procured double regi stration for him as well as for another student and recommended appropriate acti on. The said report along with the minutes of the meeting were scrutinized by t he Examination Committee and on the approval thereof by the Board, the impugned notification dated 10.06.2010 cancelling the candidature of the petitioner’s son along with others, as mentioned therein, was published. 17. The above narrative, in the estimate of this Court, in clear ter ms demonstrates the involvement of the candidate and his parents in the commissi on of gross irregularities in violation of the Regulations of the Board. As a s tatutory body, the Board is entrusted with an onerous and sacrosanct duty of con ducting its examinations in a manner informed with transparency and probity, so as to generate the confidence of the members in the public on the authenticity t hereof. The Board has framed Regulations so as to ensure this avowed objective and every participant in the examination process is required to uncompromisingly adhere thereto. If a Head of an institution indulges in activities of the kind established in the instant case in conscious contravention of the Regulations o f the Board, the process assuredly would stand defiled. The explanations submit ted by the petitioner and her husband only display a casual and phlegmatic attit ude towards the Board’s regulations having a force of law. Indeed, such delibera tive outrages ought to be strongly discountenanced lest the Regulations framed f or guiding the process as well as the projection of the Board in public percepti on are slighted and sullied beyond repairs. The autonomy of the Board as well a s its dominion in the ventures to be undertaken by it under its Regulations ough t to be zealously preserved. 18. The facts and circumstances of the case do not present any exten uating circumstance to bail out the candidate from the consequences of his wrong doings along with his parents. In the exercise of this Court’s power of judici al review, no reason is discernible to interfere with the impugned decision. Th e view taken by the Board is a plausible one warranted in the face of the irregu larities committed by the petitioner, her husband and the candidate. The petiti on, therefore, lacks in merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.