1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6452 OF 2009 1. Amruta d/o Balaji Deshmukh, PETITIONERS Age 17 years, Occ. Student, R/o Hatral, Tq. Mukhed, District Nanded, Through natural guardian Balaji s/o Sheshrao Deshmukh, Age 50 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o as above. 2. Pratibha d/o Vyankatrao Barhale, Age Major, Occ. Student, R/o Hartal, Tal. Mukhed, District Nanded. 3. Sangeeta d/o Shivaji Kajjewad, Age Major, Occupation Student, Resident of as above. 4. Sandhyatai d/o Madhavrao Dapekkakar, Age Major, Occupation Student, Resident of as above. 5. Sulochana d/o Laxman Mudbe, Age Major, Occupation Student, Resident of as above. 6. Shahaji s/o Vyankatrao Ingale, Age Major, Occupation Student, Resident of as above. 7. Sunil s/o Khushalrao Ingale, Age Major, Occupation Student, Resident of as above. 8. Haridas s/o Dhondiram Ingale, Age Major, Occupation Student, Resident of as above. 9. Pooja d/o Vishwanath Waghmare, Age Major, Occupation Student, Resident of as above. 2 10. Vikas s/o Chandarrao Marakwad, Age Major, Occupation Student, Resident of as above. 11. Payal d/o Namdeorao Limbure, Age Major, Occupation Student, Resident of as above. 12. Keshav s/o Shivajirao Ingale, Age Major, Occupation Student, Resident of as above. 13. Santosh s/o Gopalrao Kothare, Age Major, Occupation Student, Resident of as above. 14. Dnyaneshwar s/o Hanmantrao Marakwad, Age Major, Occupation Student, Resident of as above. 15. Maroti s/o Madhav Surshete, Age Major, Occupation Student, Resident of as above. 16. Ashwini d/o Tukaram Marakwad, Age Major, Occupation Student, Resident of as above. 17. Vyankat s/o Hanmantrao Tondare, Age Major, Occupation Student, Resident of as above. 18. Satish s/o Balaji Ghodke, Age Major, Occupation Student, Resident of as above. 19. Shirish s/o Balaji Ghodke, Age Major, Occupation Student, Resident of as above. 20. Jaishree d/o Namdeo Tumbalwad, Age Major, Occupation Student, Resident of as above. 21. Amar s/o Pandurang Patil, Age Major, Occupation Student, Resident of as above. 3 V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS Through its Secretary, Secondary and Higher Education, Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Pune, Through its Chairman 3. The Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Latur Division, Latur, Through its Secretary. 4. The Vidyavardhini Higher Secondary Sechool Dapke (Gu), Tal. Mukhed, District Nanded, Through its Principal. 5. The Vidyavikas Higher Secondary School, Barahali, Tal : Mukhed, District Nanded. ... Mr. A.V. Patil holding for Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for petitioner Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Assistant Government Pleader for State Mr. V.R. Sonwalkar, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3 ... CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE : 14TH DECEMBER, 2009 JUDGMENT (Per K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.) 1. Heard the learned counsel. 4 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. 3. The petitioners appeared for H.S.C. (12th standard) Examination, held in the month of February / March, 2009, at the Examination Centres, conducted by the Board (respondent No.3). 4. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the decision dated 27th August, 2009 issued by respondent No.3, whereby the performance of the petitioners for H.S.C. Examination, held in the month of February / March, 2009 has been canceled and they have been further debarred from appearing / prosecuting examination up to October, 2009. 5. The petitioners were served with show-cause-notice and they were heard in presence of their parents. 6. The Board found that the answer-sheets of the petitioners was identical, even mistakes were identical and it was established to be a copying affairs. 7. Mr. Sonwalkar has tendered a letter dated 10th March, 2009 under signature of Smt. Yelurkar disclosing that at Centre No. 6051 Dnyaneshwar Vidhya Turoti, there was mass-copying. She confirmed that on 7th March, 2009 the Squad from the office of Divisional Board, Latur had visited the Examination Centre. The main gate of the School 5 was belatedly open. She accepted, copy of answer to question No. 6 was found with student No. L094112, and when the same was tested with hundred students in the Centre, it was found that almost all the students have copied the same while answering question No. 6. In Hall No. 10, there was copy of answer to question No. 2, which was also found to have been massively done by at least hundred students. The learned counsel has tendered before us xerox of such copy, for our perusal. These facts will not be applicable to the present case, as the matter pertains to District Nanded, while irregularities referred have taken place at a Centre at Turoti, District Latur. We have verified the same with the answer-sheets tendered for our reference. 8. While assessing answer-sheets, irregularities of common answers were noticed, which was confirmed by moderators, even mistakes were common. Considering the volume of grievance the State had also appointed a high level committee. We have perused the three member Committee’s report dated 30th July, 2009 submitted to the Government. This also adds to the situation of mass-copying. 9. Barring the answer-sheet of a candidate No. T042518 (petitioner No.8), we find that the Board has not committed any error in verification of the answer-sheets, getting them compared with the other answer-sheets. So far as, answer-sheet referred above (T042518) is concerned, we direct the Board to re-verify the said answer-sheet from a moderator and take decision within 15 days from the date of order on its 6 own merits and communicate accordingly. So far as other petitioners are concerned, we do not find any error in the action of the Board in passing the impugned order of canceling the performance. Writ Petition disposed of. 10. Rule partly made absolute, as above. (K.U. CHANDIWAL J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) srm/wp/6452/09