(1) WP 5405.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5405 OF 2011 Komal d/o Ramesh Sonawane, Age : 18 years, Occu.: Education, R/o : Hudco, N-9, Aurangabad At present resident at B & C Quarter, Quarter No.23, Infront of Jaikwadi Vasayat, Karegaon Road, Parbhani, Tq. and Dist. Parbhani PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and anr. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. P.S. Pawar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. Mr. A.R. Nikam, Advocate for the respondent no.2 ..... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 18TH OCTOBER, 2011 ORAL ORDER: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. By way of present Petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction, directing the respondent no.2 to declare the result of the petitioner of the 12th Standard Board Examination held in the month of February/March-2011. (2) WP 5405.2011 3. The petitioner has been found to be indulged in malpractice. The malpractice alleged is that one of the pages in English subject answer-sheet was found to be torn. 4. Shri Nikam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the petitioner has been penalised after following the due procedure of law and as such, no interference is required. The learned counsel relies on the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition no. 5944 of 2008 dated 14.09.2009. 5. The facts in the case relied on by the respondents and facts in the present Petition are totally different. In the said case, in the main answer sheet, various pages in the main answer sheet, were barren and not a single word was written thereon. It was further found that on several pages answers were written on earlier part of the pages and remaining pages kept vacant. It was therefore found that when the petitioner has not utilized so many pages in the main answer sheet, there was no (3) WP 5405.2011 propriety in taking supplementary answer sheets. Insofar as reliance placed on the ratio of this order is concerned, it is settled law that the ratio has to be applied in the facts of a particular case and there cannot be a strait-jacket formula, to be universally applied to the different set of facts in different matters. We find that the ratio of the said order would not be applicable to the present case. 6. In the present case, the only allegation is that page no.15/16 was found to be in torn condition. There are no other allegations against the petitioner. We had directed the learned counsel appearing for the Board to make a report regarding the performance of the petitioner in other subjects. We find that the petitioner has performed satisfactorily in all other subjects. We therefore find that merely because the answer sheet is torn, could not have been a ground for holding the petitioner guilty of the misconduct. The petitioner in her reply, specifically has stated that when she had received the answer sheet and had given it back (4) WP 5405.2011 to the Invigilator, it was in a good condition. Since the answer sheet is handled by so many persons, the possibility of the said paper being torn during the transit, cannot be ruled out. Apart from that, perusal of page no.17, written by the petitioner, would reveal that the respondent-authorities had directed the petitioner to write one paragraph extempore from her course, so as to test the veracity of her credentials. We have perused the said paragraph. It shows that the petitioner possess good knowledge of English. As such, we find that the petitioner's performance cannot be said to be of such nature, which would require her to indulge in malpractice. 7. In that view of the matter, the Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B). Sd/- Sd/- [M. T. JOSHI, J.] [B. R. GAVAI, J.] arp/