^ IN 1HE HI@H COURT OF iJUDICAT^RE AT B2LASPUR (G«©.) W.E'.NO. T7<3 ©F20©1 gET^EBN Mayank Mishra S/@ Shri ©•S»Mishra»iaged about 18 yea^s^ ^/©91 Ciollege Itoa^^CSbo^ey G&l@ny Baipur* Atofotshek Agrawal S/©S«N«Agrawal| aged aboat 1© yearsi l^©~328»®amta©ol©ayf Agraseaa &e 8ol3LeES (P) &t<3,; Maiia E©a<S|! Staipir.8' 1-. Bohit Agrawal S/o P«K.Agrawal< aged abemt 1@ years x/©6 Shala Masg Cfcoiiiibey ©ol<%y|fial£xirj BSTZTIONEBS AND T^ %e £2foief Exeeufetve ©3Ei^ SecFe-tary^ Oauiaeil £©jetiae Sadian Sehool eertifieate E&camjjnation ^ New ©dhi^ •<"^ 1 ....-^" /.•.<<^-'' lj-r%c''..-' yw.--"' 2, Ihe Erineipal, ^''c^'o^''' Baj Ktamar ©3ll@ge|Raiiiar. _ '^'^^^' <?^'^ y ,^-t .»* ^' .-:.> ^:. -RESFONDENTS '^K^v^^s'ssia^'-wwsK- ^:"-2N©IA'''EI'-'-'!-S'-lsl'— ^myzm' L :::i€<»rst^itTOiii -A—t——-.- x HIGH COVRE GF GHHATTISGAKH^ BZLASPUR SING&E BENGHt lte» W.A. SHISHAK, HCai'BLB THB C.J. WRIT PBriTIQN NO.S79/2G01 May&nk Mishra & ©thers Vs The Chief Bxecuttve & Secretary^Couacil f©rttee iBdian School Certificate ExQBd<* natioo, New DelM & an©fher« •oOo- Wre Awadh Tripathjl^ leamed eounsel for petitioners^ Mr» Prasbant Mishra, le^raed csooBsel fer r^pondents, Mr« Manindra Shrivastava^ leamed eounset for Interyeners ( 22 students )• Hr« ?• Biwakar, leanaed oounsel for Interveners ( 5 stu^ents ) and Mr, Asbok Trivedhi, leanaed eoansel fer Interve&ers < 12 students )• ORAL ORDER ( Passedon 25/4/2001 ) The matter eonceros re-exasiAaatioa of Ixidian Scbool Gertiflcate ExaainatAoR for tbe year 2001 ia respect of some subjects and partjLeulerly An reBpect of Rajtoamar Gollege at Raipur. 2) While JLssuiiag aottces on IS/-^ 2001» this Court had passed tbe followiag interlm ordert "Ontil farther ©relersthe ^caraiBatiea seheduled to be held frore April l9fh to 27th shall aot be held and the tiae table pr^pared in this regard shall remala suspended and shall ^ot be acted >• The respondents, however, are give^k IjLberty to approach thi$ Gourt for tBGdificatioa, variatlOR or vacation of this iateriia @rder, Af so adwised**. 3) Retunas have been filed* Learned eounsel represeRting fhe parties have been heaxd fiaally^ In view of the urgency of the matter^ I pr©pose to disposeof ttie natfr An the open Court now* ^ •o ^^ '^ 4) Xndian Scihool Certificate &ce»inati@ns were scteeduled fran Xst March to 3rd April* ESca* aiaatAoBs were coneludcd, Thereafter, An respeet of Raj Kiaaiar Gollege^ Raipur - responde^t xio^2 re-wcaBain&t.t.oa @f«ie sane eicaaaioatiGD An respeet ©£ seme sobjeets eeme to fee issiaed by ttee Oauneil fer the Indian Seh©olCertifAcate BxeBajLn&tlons • There are three writ petitl.o&ers • 5) Mr» Awadh Tripathi, leamed counsel f@r the petitienexrs sutemits ttiat if the allegatloii of leakag®®fcertaio questien papers 1s foyad to be true and &f it became necessary tteat re-exaaBia&tloB ghould be ordered^ it sbouldhave been done Asi respect of alJl the papers aad also in respeet of all the centres tbreagb eut the eountry* Leaxned coansel for the petitloner fuartfeer suteBaits that ^ereas the defeet was said to have beeo detected @n 5tfe March 2001, Vhe entire exandsation was allowed to be coacluded iqpto ttee last date A»e«,^to 3rd April 2001• It is tfee siiteBiissiOR of fche leeraed couDsel ^-v/ for the petitioixer tbat^defeection of some lealcage in aoy ©rsGeae of the question papexs^ the exaainatioBS could heve been stepped fran 5th Harch itself, Another suteraj.ssioR of Mr« Tripatbi, leamed couiisel for tdie petitio^ers is that as far as question pegpeans ©f Aecou®tsstabjeet$arec@neem®d^ new sets ©fquestion papers were brougjbt froa Delhi aod the earlier question pepers were ecaaapletely replaced aad e%amiBati©Rswere Meld in respeet of Aecounts pqpexs^ The statoreissKus ef the learned couasel f@r tbe petitioner As tfeet if such was p©ssiblein respeet of AccouBts papers t^y the same yaxd-stick sheuld not have beea applied to other papers^ It has also been ^ •• ^ ^ • f^rther subBaitted by leamed eouxisel for tbe petltioiier teat siace the petitioners have alreedy. ^^ done tfeetx' best, it As acw nbt posslble for thea to concentrate to wrjlte the same e%aminations la respeet of scme papers* AccQrding to Mr, ?ripethi» ttie entire exer- cise of cancellation of the aforesaid easamiaatio& In respect of sorae papezs is uncalled for and it As An fact arbitrary. 5) Mr» ManiBdra Shrivastava, leamed counsel for Interveneas supporting the case of thewritpetitionei^; $utoGalts that though the e»taai|,&atlons as such can be beld uhder Gertain cixcuinstaacesB inasmach as such power is yested in tbe CpunciJ^ @@coxdi©gto him tbere are mo sufficient Riaterials Justifying cancellation @f exaHiiBation in respect of some papers and ordering fresh exaKiinatlons In reepect @f those papers^ Mr» Manin- dra ShiAvastava fufetfcer subGBits that in fact BO proper Inquiry as su^i has beea csondycted by the GGropetent Ax3ith@rity» It is siatoitted that there is ®ocoiiclusive findiag by the Ceiapetent Authority to the effeet that leakage toolc place la reepect of scane questlo^ papers whJLle in eustody of respondeat ©©•2<»Accordiag t@ Mr» Shrivastava, leari^d eoianseil for the Interyenees it cannot be clearly ascertaiired as to who really cGiiducted the Inquiry and what speeific findlag has b®@nrecorded by sudti Enquiry eoramitteee ^ccording to Mr» ShrJlvastava, if e^uiry report as sudfe bas been produeed before this Court, the same ceuld have been peirased for tfee satisfaction of this Court^ but such 1s aot pessttele inasBnuch no repert bas been placed •^^ before the Ceurt. It 1s/. fiuctiber suteiaission ©fMr» Shrivastava that since soraetlliag abRormal was said ••' •• •• '^ -^, ,n to have been detected as early as o% 5Ui March 2©01^ a full e^qujlry eoxxld have been »ade even befere the ceBapletloB of the exsndLnations which eame to an ead ©n3xd ^pril 2001 • Learaed couasel has straoeously siitemitted that thexe is ao ^^ finding that there was leakage ia respect of some of the questioa papers* At tbis stage< however, I may also hasten to say to the credit of Mr» Shri- vastava that in all fairaess leamed coiansel, however, is of the view that everythiag was aot well A& the entlre s.ltuati@n, 6) Mr» P« Diwakar wteile represeBtiag fiye stodents as IntesEvarjstiSWits that when soiaethiag abnounal As detecfd» the CGBqpeteBt Autbority i»e*»the Cou,ncll has to take actien deemed fit by it Inasmucto as sudb po^er is elearly vested with tbe respoadeat ao»l • Council» 7) At this stage, I caa uadexstaod tfea^ all the leamed ceunsel repre^enting the parties are very aauch distaibed inasaach as the interest and the futxare ef the students of tfais Oollege particularly XIlth Class eggsroiffiees- are likely to be affected adversely if the matter 1s BOI decided ri§^t<tway. Mr« Diwakar hafi c produGCd a tlaie te&le of varloiis tmporbant CGmpetltive exaiainattona to be condueted by vari@us Authorities ln which tfae stadeBte/exauniaees would lilce to appear, Tline-table et varlAtis exaBainations are stated to have been aade ccnBnenclnQ frsro 6th May 2001 te 23/6/2Q©1, Xn this resgard Mr» Diwakar suferoits that the studeots aay be allowed to take tbeir re-exaainations lacaediately so fchat they will also be able to appear ia ali other iaportant estamiaatioas as stated ebove. Mr» Oiwakar ••5 ^^ ••5 ^e \ further s^Qofsd.ts that if re^^^amiiiations are to be heldy tfee petttionexB caxmot take grtevanee tfaat In sueh event they sball saffer irreparable loss inasmuch as like all otfeer students they would bave a right to wrlte the same cgxaaiiiaatjloxi^ At thie stage^ aaother faet saay be reeorded^ The re-»®camination sought to be made is in respeet of all other subjects except English Papers l fic 2< Efeysics Paper 2 (Prae* tical) aaad Aec^uats paperse 8) Mr« Aghelc Triv©diappearlng @n bebsilf ©f 12 students (iaterveners) subBaits that there JLs ao aecessity of re-exaniiiaatlea of the praetieal side la respeet of all other svbjects as the same has feee^ doae la respect of IbysJLes Paper2» It is^ therefore^ the sateraission of Mr» Trivedi that if at all re-exarai- nation is to be ordered it ©ughtto teave beea osily in respect of rCTaaiaing theory papezse Another siab- BBissiora of Mr» Triyedi is this that whereas oa the faee of para 3 of ^e letter written by the Principal @f tbe ©olle<gpeto respendent no«l, it clearly appears that the leakage or some abaoraiality was found ©nly AB respeet of esscaa^aatioes whi^a coB%§need frem 13th March 2001, atl the. @ia^Je@ts ^asasjies ^OSl^ ^n except Bnglish papers 1 & 2^ FhipBics Paper 2 and Aceoiaiits papers have been excluded in tfee re-exaninatlon sehedule<» 9) Regulatioas and Syllabuses of March 2001, has been placed before me. The power ef re-examiaation in regtilatiOR •J' is to the following effeet» "The Chief Executive and Secretary ef the CDuncil sball have tlie power to h©tda re<»exami®ati©nor an additioiial exaiatnatleo, if he is satisfted that sueh a re-exan.lnatlon or additional egcaiaination is necessary*. •• 6 •• 10) MIR, ©iwakar,learaed counsel for Interveners draws my attentioe to RegulatJLon 12 whicte is to tfee followiag effectt -If tfee Awanaing GenBaittee 1s satisfled that the use of dlshfiaest aeaas in a paper ©rpapera has been wldespread at a ce&tjpe^ the Awarding ©©asiitteereseryes the right to caiacel the r^sialts of all candidates ef that centre in tfee paper @r papexs eoneenaed^ or in ttee entire examiaatioa at the eentre JLf several papers are Anvolved**, He sglaratts that In the event, ttais Court holds that re^escamlnation is not warranted aad ss^a^. tlie results of the earlier exaiBinatlons sbaiald be deelared, the Au^ojcity ean very well take , ^<-^/ reeourse to this prDvislo^.in sueh eveat the losa @f A^~- the studeats wtll Indeed be As®?@>a®9S3&e^^ ll]l Mr»Prash&nt Mishra, leamed counsel, who represeEits respondents^ has produeed saaae doetttaesits^ @oe doexaBeot is a stateaent of fa^t suteBiitted to the DepQty Seeretary, Council for I»S«G<|Bon 16/3/2001 by one P.Nichols, the Siaqpervisiag Exaaaiaer, The relevant portion of the stateaaeat &s as followst ** i) that on 12/3/2001, at tihe end of the IGS E3c,2@0l, while makiag arrange- nent of Bx» for the next aioraing, I no- ticed a horizontal cut aloog the strip near the btottom edge of tfae Q.pkt* of Bio-I. InraedAately I showed the sane to the Priiicipal Mr»<T»B«SinghSir & Mr.S.S, Adhikari* They 1o©VhiBsisied ree to check ol^er pkts» On a thorou^b <Aeck of the Pkts» we feuad tfeat aiost ©fthe Ptets had the siBnilar eut line, TfajLs detection was eenmiinjlcatea to Mr« X.MDto, ^o directed Mr.J.B, SiBgh Sir to convey ttoe same to Mr»Fantha®e» ii) that baving received the iBstruc- tioa t>y Mr» Fan^fiBae, the next nneming tteat is on l3th tnstt* I cnnpUed with the instructiQn passed on to ne by Mr» J,B» Singh. The O.Pkt was cat along the si4es and duly packed, eealed & posted tteroiagh the speed post the same day. •• •• 9 •• 111) that next day on 15tb Marcb« Madam R, Wtlsoa banded over a newr JPkt ef AecGuats of ise«l2 to replace ttoe one An ny possession and to@k back fbe saae* The exa®s<Npr©ceededwith tfee aew set ©f 0,P» of A@G@tmta» Av) that on IStb I was called @n earlier and Madem t^lson asked %e te ope© t&e alnlrah and cbeclced the Etey»2 Q.lPltt* Qae oleayed It and instructed me to GGBduct ti^e exare» v) that after ifey»2 escems got @ver, sbe egalia asted rae to sh@w the O.Rct, ef Eliy.t which 1s scheduled to take place en 19th Anstt, aiad furltoer asked me to eut epeo the pkt« An tbe slrailar fashi©nthat I hed doae for Bio-2» She rssplaeed ttee paeld.ag with the new @n®saad bandcd over te me to keep in tfee safe cuctody** ll-a) Aoother d©euneot As a letter dated 16/|/20©l satnitted to the Cbief Executlv®aad Secretary, C©uncil for Indian Scheol Certificate BxaniiBatlGBs. In thls letter certain eveiits relatlng to the exainJla&tiens aad scane snspicion that had ariseii ia regaxd to questloa papers h&ve been deseribed. The Pxlacipal also stated s^sie of the steps he had talce^ a»a the laformatjLoB he had furaished t©Mr. Xavier Plnto* In para 7 of the letter of fhe Priiusipal, asa©agofher thiaga At was further stated Na@ taaaperlng wa@ aoticed la aay ©fthe p^pera pertainin®t©I.C»S»B«BKaaainatlons but to our eurprise we notieed siailar cats la the nost ef t^e packets eentainio®the X»S»C,BxamiBatleBs". 12) Mr» Prasbant Mishra, leamed eeQBsel f©rttee respoadeiats sulbnits that so far as teiapariBg wlth tbe quesUoa papers relat.lag t©XIlth Class Exaniaa- tAens^ tbis eteeuld be taken to be a definite fiBdlag. -••8 •• 8 13) Aaotfaer doeureent is dated 30/3/2©0l« Thls 1s a letter addressed te the Ghief Executive and Secretary of the (toancil. Relevaat portiens are frena paras 1 to 8 and the sarae have beein extracted as followst w !,• OB the basis of certain reports received loy ne allegiRg taiqpering and leakaige of ISC (12) QuestlOB pagper packets at the Ba|l£Bmar College, Raipur, I visited the CSollege on 15-16 Mard&y 2» I fouod that tbe allegatioias were eorrect and that the packets c^n^ taiiiiag the questioa papers had bee® opeiaed and resealedy 3. I preseated a report @B »Tiavestiga^ ti©BSand findJlngs to the SpeGial GCTnBiittee ©nExareiBations ©fthe Couiicil» 4« The Special eoraad.ttee on BxaaninatiGns of fhe Cotinci^t^^^^^aBftined the exsfcire matter includtxig the letter fremthe Principal, Rajkamar College, dated 16 March (cepy enclGsed)( 5» The Speeial CCTMnittee OB Bxarainations decided te ca&cel the ISC <12) Warcfe 2001 ExaBninatloB of tfee ©aadtdatesof the RajkxaBar College as det&iled in my letter to tfee Principal, Kajkuaar C©llege(copy egicl@sed)y 6» The fact tbat ttois case of leakage and tesipering took plaee wMle tfee Question Papers were i»the custody of the Rajiramar College is a aatter @f seri©uscoacerny 7* You inay therefore want to eoquire as t@ te©wthis happe©ed»so that the 9008 narae of the Gollege is o©ttarBished?& 8e The Oouacil for the lEdtea School CertifiLcate feagnAnatiGns will tntinate to you in due of course ©ftdme its declsioa regaicting the coBtinuation of <aKanaiBati©ncentre at the Rajkumar Gollege**. 13-A On the s^ne day^ i«e»,30/3/2001, the sald Deputy Secretary - RAta Wilson addressed a letter to the Pii ncigal regaxding cancellati©nof ISC(l2) Marda 2001 Exaiainati*n at Geatr^ No»B /8191 i& the ••9 •• 9 •• Rajlaamar 0©llege,Raip®r« Relevant portien of the said letter is as followst WA Speclal Conmittee on Examiaatioas aet and after due deliberatlo^ concluded that- a) The ISC ExaaaJLoation at the Rajkt.iraar eollege^ JBaipur^ teas been seriously GGmpraRised through tanqperiBg of the Que^tioR Paper Bacloets that sliew clear slges of feeing opened and beieg reiealed except Riysics ®aper-2o b) The Rajlaamar College ISC Exeraiiaatio® staads caBeelled except Bngllsh Papers 1 & 2» AccouBts end Fhysles JPaper 2 for the feJllowiiig reaseiust * A fresh Accoxmts paper was given on the spot on 3.5 Mar^i, * The packet contalning Physies Paper 2 did siot show aay sigas of taattperiag» * QnStii March the SupervAajLog Examiner iBfonned the Principal that the arraDge- nient ©fthe Ouestion Paper Packets in the eupS^oard liad been disturbed• This was after English Papers 1 & 2 had been held. c) ISC (123 Se-fixaminatlen will be beld for tbe.candidates of the RajkuBaar GelleQe frore 19 t®27 ^ril, 2001, d) The expenses incurred on holdieg tteis fie-Bxaminatien will be beme by the Bajkurear College** (Xi'v^ 14) Gbviously, the yovier/sef^Ssi. coapete&Cfeof ^»e GQ^iacil to order fresh ^caminatiens in certain sittietion er cixcumstance, As not dispited at lAe Bar» In etber words, egcexcise of power to conduct re-examinatloo in certain ei»e«n®tance1s clearly envisaged under aferesaid regulatlen. 15) %ough Mr« Shriyastava has argued v^ennently that iceiuiry said to bave been done is oot sufficleat and no proper inquiry as such has been mede^ on carefol perusal of tbe two docuraents naBaely dated 30/3/2@©laddressed to the Cbief ESxefcutive & Secretary in which tbe circiaastences have been cleady stated by the Bqputy Secretary about the enquiry made by ••10 (^) •• 10 •» the Competent Authority and secondly the otfeer letter dated 30/3/2001 regardi^g cancelletl@n ef the exemiaa^ ti©n, I an of the view tbat if re--e%aHainatl.on is aot allowed what would be at stake is credibitity of the C@mpetent Autb@rity that can eoiiduet Uie CTcaminati©ne In ®y view^ this will far outwei^i any otfeer eonsldera- tion inclydi&@ tbe inconvenience? tfeat are likely to be faced by the students in the event ©f re-exemiRattoias bei^f eonducted^ In other words^ it will aot be fair and reasonable for tMs Court t© interfere with the prima-facie fiading and subseqiaent decision taken on the basis of sucb enquirye I am also further of tfee view that in vlew of the very many Important CGBBpetitive exemlnations that have been schedule^l as I have atated ebove, the studeiats of Vhls C©lle|(e are also pr^pariiag their lessonS. I am also inclAned to think that beeause of the order o£ re-'exemiaatd.on fhe students are now preparing tfaeir lessons^ Xt is not a case wherei& certal& stiadents of thls Cellege have been singled oat in the present exercise, If tlaat be so, the entJlre ^cercise ef the CoBpe^ent Autfeority appears to ®e to be fair and Just. 16) It 1s open to the CGnpeteot Aatbority to enquire iate the questioa of leakage/tsaiperlng with the questioa papers and t@ punish tbe gailty aecord.tag to law. 17) In the resolt, in the prenises aforesaid thls petition is dlsrelssed. I pass BO ©rder as te costs, Interlm order passed eartler shall stand vacated» Sd/- Chief Justice 25/472001 rsnr