PETETIONERS RESPONDENTS . Dukhi Ram Kewat S/Q Gore Lal Kewat, agété about 20 yams, R/o ViHage Amlidih, Post Koyadaa District Raipur (CG) Mithun Prasad Sahu s/o Ishwar Prasad Sahu, aged abom’ 21 year; Rfo Viilage Korda, Posi Mai‘da, Tahsi! Baiauda Bazarg District Raipur (0G3 . Lakhan iai Paikra s/o Mamaldaan La} Paikra. aged aboui 2i} years, R/o Village Korda, Post Marda, Tehsi‘; Balauda Bazar. District Raigmr “.AJ.) New Sing‘n Sahu s/o Biras Ram Sahu, aged abem 2O years, Rio Village Korda} Post Mania Tami} Baiauda, Bazar, Disirict Raipur (C.G.) Surendra Kumar Kewat s/o Tirath Ram Kswat. aged about 19 years: R/o V§Hage Semariya, ?osi Ksyada, Tshsil Balauda, Bazar, District Raipur (CG) . mun-5r; 1 Kama? 1/ m Kewat s/e Samnauax d i Kewat aged abmli 19 years, R’s Viiiagé Semar§ya, Post Kayada, Tehsil Balauda, Bazar, District Raipur (CG) K11. Priyanka Sahu D/o Duryodhan Prasad Sahu, aged £21601}: 18 years, R/o village & Posi Mardzg TeEEsil Baiauda, Bazar, Distriei Raipur (CG) K11. Rajni PateE Dz'o Kailar Fatah ageé 3110a: 29 years, R/‘o viliage Koréa’ Post Mania, Tshsil Bakmda, Bazat; Dish‘ict R’a‘ipur (CG) Chaiman Chhatiisgarh Maéhyamk $hiksha Mmdai, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) . q .3 ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITLWIGN OF INDIA SB : Hon’ble Ehri SatiSh K. Awéhotri, J. Schooi, Marcia: District Raipur (CG) ! WRET PETEION UNDER (Passed on 17m day of February ZGG9) My Innx n.4,; VERSUS S6C¥a£ary C}ma‘:tisgarh Madhvamik Shiksha Mandai, Raipur Disiz'ict Raipur (CG) Principai, Jar; Bhagiéai‘i Higher Secomiary ORAL GRDER HIGH COURT OF CHI—IATTESGARH ‘AT BILASPUR WRIT PETETION (C3 N0. SO82 {£2008 Presmn: Shri Manoj Chauhan, Advocais far the peti‘iimkers. Shri R.S.Patei. Axivocate for the respanaiem NG. 1 mad 2. Shri Sanmsh Sahu, Advacate for the fespOiident N0. 3. KR 7ith a1a}: commit of parties. thE mattar is taken up for haafing fmaiiy. 2 ME The pe‘xitioners-students seek a wait of eertiorari to set aside/quash the erder dated 11.7.2008 (Annemre W2) whereby the Higher Secorxdary Schocl Cemficate Examinatien, 2008 was canceiied, consequently, the results thereof were withheld on account of mass copying. The indisputable feats, in brief, as projected by the petiiioners~studems, are that they appeared in class XII examiiiation conducted by the responden‘i-Beard. The examination was held on 29.02.2008 1'0 25.032008. The Govemment Higher Secondary Sehoei, Siryadih. was :he examination cemre for the 9etitioners. Aiiei' theemminations, the petitioners were waiting for theii‘ resuits hut ali of a sudden, they came to kimw abom the impugied order dated 11.7.2008 by which their resuits were withheld on account of mass copying. Shri Chauhan. leamed counsei appearing for the petitioners wouid submit that without there being any investigation report to the effect that there was mass coming or irreguiarity in the conduct of examinations. the respondent authorities, i.e. the responttent No. 1 and 2 have taken eeision to cancei the examinations of Higher Seconoary Ceitificate Examinatiom 2008, Without any basis. Even otherwise, 4?,me resent 1 oi‘the L simiiariy situated candidates appearing in the Higher Seconéiaiy School Certificate examination were pnhlishecii in May, 2008. The aeeision of the Examination and the 'Resolts Committee was taken subsequently on 25.6.2008 (Armature R13}. it appears that without any finding or deeision, the results of the petitioners were withheki ai'bitrarily. Even if there was a mass copying, opportunity of hearing ought to have been provided to the candidates, who have been prejudiced by omteeilatiori of the entire examination. Thus: the petitioners seek a writ in the nature of eertiorari. as aforestated. Per contea, Shri R.S.Patei, iearned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and 2/Board, wouid submit that a eonipiaint 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 detaiied enquiry and on iindihg that there was mass eopying, the Examination and the Resuits committee decided to cancel ‘JI ihe abova-stated examinations in its méeting 51d on 25.06.2008 (Annexure RB). Thus, the dacision ofths respondent N0. 1 and 2 iS just and proper. Having heard 1‘iva1 contmtions of‘ihe paxties, perused the pleadings and clocumsnts appended therato, it appears that mass copying has been feund in most of the subjects. Ola pemsal of the documents, there ie no doubt that the ailegaiion of fmding of mass copying by ‘Lhe respondent No. 1 and 2 is based Oil sufficient materials. The coniention that'the same is based on conjectures and guess-work, to harm the interest ofthe petitioners, is not tenabie. it cannot be said that the respondent No. 1 and 2 have acted in an arbitrary and Whimsical manner. Contention of learned counsei for the petitioner that the entire exercise and consequently the order dated 11.07.2008 (Axmemn‘e P/2) deserves to be quashed as the basic principle of natural justice i.e. Lmci'z' alteram partem has not been followed. Neither the examination centre, school nor the students have been afforded an opportunity of hearing before the impugned adverse order was passed, is not tenabie in the facts of the instant case. In case of mass copying, principle cf naturai justice need not be strictly complied with. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal, Mf. v. Abhilash Shiksha Prasar Samz'ti and arirersl observed as under: “2. We feel a little distressed that in matter like this the High Court should have interfered with the decision taken by the Board. The contention was that the examination was cancelled on the report of a Naib Tehsildar dated 18-3-1996 who was not authorized by the Board to Visit the examination centre. it is irreievant Whether the Naib Tehsildar was authorized by the Board to visit the centre or not but what is of importance is the fact that he did Visit the centre and found the students copying even before the question papers were distributed. This clearly implies that the students were aware of the questions indicative of the leakage ofthe question paper. The Nail) Tellsiidar even complained that the teachers did not object to the . (1998) ‘ 9 SCC '236 W l MS students antering the examination hziH wi‘ih books and copying material. That wouid mean that either they were hand in glove with the students 01; they were: for some reason not able to stop the students from copying. This is also evident from the report of the Superintendent of Centre. The Naib Tehsildar states that neither the Supermtendent of the Centre nor the invigilators were prepared to lnteifere and were not a‘ole to explain how the students could enter the hall with books, eta, and copy therefrom with impunity. The Superintendent of the Centre states that he had requested the Nail) Tehsildar to stay for three hours but the Naih Tehsiidar did not stay. The report of the valuers at p. 81 also goes to show that there was mass copying. The High Court brushed it aside as subsequent material. But it supports the Board’s decision and it was improper in a sensitive matter like this to ignore it on such a technical ground. In the face of this material, we do not see any justification in the High Court having interfered with the decision taken by the Board to treat the examination as cancelled. It is unfortunate that the student community resort to such methods to succeed in examination and then some of 7 them come forward to contend that innocent students become victims of such misbehaviour of their t companions. That cannot he heiped. In such a situation the Board is left with no alternative but to cancel the examination. It is extremely difficult for the Board to identify the innocent students horn those indulging in malpractices. One may feel sorry for the innocent students but one has to appreciate the situation in which the Board was placed and the alternatives that were available to it so far as this examination was concerned. It had no alternative but to cancel the results and we think, in the circumstances, they were justified in doing so. This should sewe as a lesson to the students that such malpractices will not help them succeed in the examination and they may have to go through the drill once again. We also think that those in charge of the examinations should also take action against their Supervisorsflnvigilators, etc., who either permit such activity or become silent spectators thereto. If they feel insecure because ofthe strong—arm tactics of those who indulge in malpractices, the remedy is to secure the serviceslof the Uniformed Personnel, if need be, and ensure that students do not indulge in such malpractices.” Cs 9. The ratio laid down in the matter of illadhyamic Skiksha Adandai (supra) was reiterated in the matter ofRam Preeri Yadav v. U.P. 50am] o High Schaal am? MIQI‘IHeCiias‘e Edaicalion‘aiid oihersz, Whersin it was further Observed that in ease of mass-copying, principles of natural justice need not be strictly complied with. 10. Applying the well settled ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the facts ofthe present case, it is not necessary to issue a show-cause- notiee and afford an oppmtunity of hearing to each and every student. The respondent No. l and 2 e Board, have conducted a detailed enquiry and on the basis of reports submitted on each subject, the decision ofthe respondent No. 1 and 2 cannot be faulted with. ll. Thus, this petition is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is desirable that the respondent-Board shall conduct reexamination as early as possible to save time of the petitioners. No order asto costs. iJ Sd/— .Satish K. Agnihotri Judge V Q (2093) 3 SCC 311