HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 5353 of2008 PETITIONERS Umashankar & Others. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : The Chairman, Chhattisgarh Madhyamik Shiksha Manda], Raipur & Others. Post for pronouncement of the Judgment and Order on 5712/2008 \,Xx ‘ I Sd/— j .o :Satish K. Agnihotri ‘ ‘ Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 5353 of 2008 : 1. Umashankar s/o Kshatra Dhari Banafar, aged about 19 years, 2. Guddu S/o Krishna Mriduli, aged about : 19 years, 3‘ Laxman Rajwade S/o Manager Rajwade, aged about : 19 years. 4‘ Mukeshwar Prasad S/o Driver Ra1n7 aged about : 18 years. 5. Muneshwar Prasad S/o. Driver Ram, aged about : 19 years. 6. Pratibha Toppo S/o Marshal Toppo, aged about : 19 years. 7. Prinshikala S/o Mivnay Toppo, aged about : 19 years. . Rajkumari S/o RamanandVishwakarma, aged about : 2O years, 9. Ramraj Giri S/o Manohar Giri, aged about : 19 years, 10. Shila S/o Gyanchand, aged about : 19 years, 11. Sriram Tiwari S/o radhe Shyama Tiwari, aged about : 20 years, .12.Sudha Sahu S/o Nagina Prasad, aged about : 19 years, 13. Sunita S/o Babulal, aged about : 19 years, 14.Arun Prakash S/o Shiv Mangal, aged about : 20 years. 15.Vishwakeshan Gond S/o Kailash Chandra, aged about : 18 years, 16.Vivek Yadav S/o Rajveer Singh Yadav, aged about 18 years, Petitioner no. 1 to 16 are R/o Village : Katkona Colliery, Police Station— : Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District : Korea (C.G.) 17.Deepak Gupta S/o Ralnhari Gupta, aged about : 19 years. 18.Sanjay Kumar Sahu S/o Sidhnath Sahu, aged about : 19 years, , 19.Sanjay Chakradhari S/o Triveni Chakradhari, aged about : 19 years, 20.Sudhir Gupta S/o Roop Chand Gupta, aged about : 19 years. 21.Varsha Rani S/o. Padmesh Chakradhari, aged about : 19 years, Petitioner N0. 17 to 21 are WO : Village : Puta, Police Station : Patna, Tahsil : Baikunthpur, District : Korea (C.G.) , VERSUS : 1. The Chairman, Chhattisgarh Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Raipur, District : Raipur PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS I .:\.}\ (C.G.) 2. The Secretary, Chhattisgarh Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Principal, Khajurahil Higher Secondary School, Katkona, District : Korea (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri R.S.Patel, Advocate for the respondent No. l and 2. Shri Vinay Harit, Deputy Advocate General for the respondent No. 3. (Passed on § #day of December, 2008) 1. The petitioners-students seek a writ/order to quash the impugned memo dated 21.7.2008 (Annexure P/l) whereby the Higher Secondary school Certificate Examination, 2008 was cancelled, consequently, the results thereof was withheld on account of mass copying. The indisputable facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioners are that the petitioners are the students of class Xllth (Science) who appeared in the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination, 2008. The examination was held on 29.02.2002 to 13.03.2008. Khajurahil Government Higher Secondary School, Katkona was the examination centrefor the students of Xllm. In the inspection notes submitted by various inspection teams it was found that there was no mass copying and the examination was conducted in a satisfactory manner. The results of class Xllth were declared in the last week of May, 2008. But the results of the petitioners were withheld by impugned memo dated 21.7.2008 (Annexure P/l). It was held that pursuant to the decision of the Examination and the Results Committee, held on 25.6.2008 l U) (Annexure R/l), mass copying was reported and found, therefore, the results were withheld. 3. Shri Pushpendra Kumar Patel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that without there being any investigation report to the effect that there was mass copying or irregularity in the conduct of examinations, the respondent authorities, i.e. the respondent No. l and 2 have taken decision to cancel the examinations of Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination, 2008, without any basis. Even otherwise, the result of the similarly situated candidates appearing in the Higher Secondary School Certiflcate examination were published in May, 2008. The decision of the Examination and the Results Committee was taken subsequently on 25.6.2008. It appears that without any finding or decision, the result of the petitioners were withheld arbitrarily. Even if there was a mass copying, opportunity of hearing ought to have been provided to the petitioners, who have been prejudiced by cancellation of the entire examination. Thus, the petitioners seek a writ/order, as aforestated. 4. Per contra, Shri R.S.Patel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. l and 2/Board, would submit that a complaint was made to the respondents alleging that there was mass cheating/copying in the examination centre. The respondent No. 1 and 2 have, thereafter, conducted a detailed enquiry and on finding that there was mass copying, the Examination and the Results committee decided to cancel the above¢stated examinations in its meeting held on 25.06.2008 (Annexure R/l). The respondent No. 1 and 2 have filed some more documents (Annexure R/3 to R/5), indicating that the answer-sheets were common, even the same was done in the same hand—writing. In some of the answer—sheets, answers were given in such a manner and obtained maximum marks asto indicate that facilities were provided by the examination centre itself to have mass copying. Thus, the decision of the respondent N0. 1 and 2 is just and proper. Having heard rival contentions of the parties, perused ‘the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it appears that mass copying has been found in most of the subjects. On perusal of the documents (Annexure R/3 to R/S) wherein reports have been submitted subject-wise, there is no doubt that the allegation of finding of mass copying by the respondent No. 1 and 2 is based 0n sufficient materials. The contention that the same is based on conjectures and guess-work, to harm the interest of the petitioners, is not tenable. It cannot be said that the respondent N0. l and 2 have acted in an arbitrary and' whimsical lnal’lnel‘ . Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the entire exercise and consequently the orders dated 21.07.2008 (Annexure P/l) deserves to be quashed as the basic principle of natural justice i.e. audz' alteram partem has not been followed. Neither the examination centre, school nor the petitioners have been afforded an opportunity of hearing before the impugned adverse order was passed, is not tenable in the facts ofthe instant case. In case of mass copying, principle of natural justice need not be strictly complied with. (See Madhyamic Shiksha'Mandal, 1MP. v. @‘ Abhilash Shiksha Prasar Samz‘ti and othersl and Ram Preeti Yadav v. UP. Board ofHigh School and Intermediate Educaiion and othersz). 7. Applying the well settled ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the facts of the case, it is not necessary to issue a show—cause-notice and afford an opportunity of hearing to each and every student and the school, where the students were studying. The respondent No. 1 and 2/ Board, have conducted a detailed enquiry and on the basis of reports submitted on each subject, the decision of the respondent No. 1 and 2 cannot be faulted with. 8. Thus, this petition is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is desirable that the respondent-Board shall conduct re- examination as early as possible to save time of the students. No order f t , v Sdl- _ i ,Satish K. Agni‘notrl ‘ ‘ ,7 'Judge asto costs. Amit I ‘(1998) 9 scc 236 , 2 (2903)8 scc 3n