TMI Blog2000 (1) TMI 1015X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on account of mass copying by examinees or outside interference or any other reason which deprives examination/s of its sanctity. 66(b) The Chairman may also for reasons to be recorded in writing, cancel any examination/s either partly or wholly on the basis of any report or information from any source other than those mentioned above including any anonymous information in case he is satisfied that the sanctity of the examination/s has been adversely affected on account of mass copying by the examinees or outside interference at any examination/s centers for any other reason vitiating the process of conduct of examination/s. Provided that the Chairman shall before acting upon any such information received from any source under Clause 66-b above have the same verified by the subject experts/officers of the Board or any authorised Government Officer or Officer of the Education Department. The result of the examination/s of any such centers shall remain withheld pending verification of the above information (Clause 66-b) received by the Chairman and his final order thereon. Provided further that the cancellation of any examination/s under 66(a) and 66(b) shall not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Board; B. The Board must make endeavour to limit their prospective sources of information with regard to mass copying to high ranking officers of high calibre; C. The machinery of flying squads should be evolved in such a manner so that they can control the supervision of the centers falling within their definite area; D. The power of cancellation of results should be vested in the Board. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs. 3. The said judgment is under challenge in these appeals. 4. From the impugned judgment it appears that the High Court considering the case of both the parties, formulated eight questions: 1. Does the Notification dated January 27, 1993 suffer from being violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution ? 2. Does the Notification arm the Board with powers which are arbitrary in nature ? 3. Does the Notification provide for a different agency as repository of power so far as cancellation of the examination is concerned and in doing so does it violate the scheme of the Act ? 4. Does the Notification dated 27-1-1993 suffer from vagueness ? 5. What ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oes not make any provision for verification of a report by subject experts when the same is received in terms of Clause 66(a) and therefore, it is arbitrary in nature. Another infirmity pointed out by the High Court in its judgment is that the first proviso to the notification is invalid to the extent that it authorised a Government Officer to verify the report received by the Chairman. It appears that the High Court found it difficult: to reconcile that a Tehsildar, a Sub-Divisional Magistrate, a Police Officer, Additional Deputy Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner should verify the fact whether at a certain center mass copying was resorted to. 7. The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the High Court has committed an error in quashing the notification of the Board and also the notification issued by the Chairman adding certain clauses in the regulations vesting the power in the Chairman to cancel the examination at a center on being satisfied on the reports received from the flying squad or other agencies that there was large scale copying in the examinations at the center. The learned Counsel further submitted that these regulations were framed by the Board whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to publish the results of examinations conducted by the Board; (ix) to admit candidates to the examinations of the Board under the conditions laid down by the Regulations; (xvii) to take such measures as the Board may think necessary to raise the standard of the education in the State and advise the Government on matters of policy relating to elementary, secondary and higher secondary education; (xviii) to frame regulations for carrying out its purposes; (xxi) to appoint committees consisting of such members of the Board and such other persons, if any, as the Board in each case may deem fit for carrying out specified purposes and to delegate to these committees, such powers as it may consider necessary; (xxv) to delegate such of its powers to any officer or committee of the Board as it may deem fit, provided that such delegation is made by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of the Board; (xxix) to constitute various divisions, units and committees for the furtherance of its objectives; 12. In Section 13 it is provided that the Chairman shall be the Head of the Board and shall ensure that this Act and the regulations ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... officer of the Board. If the Board in its wisdom considered it advisable to delegate the power to take action in the matter of mass copying at any examination center in favour of its Chairman no exception can be taken to it on the ground of want of power. In that case the Chairman acts as a delegate of the Board. Any action taken or order passed by the Chairman on the strength of the delegation made by the Board cannot be faulted on the ground of lack of competence or authority. 17. On careful consideration of the provisions of the Act and the regulation of the Board under challenge, we are of the view that both the Board and its Chairman were within their powers and authority in issuing the notifications dated 27-1-1993 and 29-6-1993 respectively. The High Court was clearly in error in quashing the said notifications as beyond the power of the Board and its authorities. 18. While judging the authority or otherwise all steps taken by authorities of the Board to take action against candidates taking resort to mass malpractice it should be borne in mind that the Board is entrusted with the duty of maintaining higher standards of education and proper conduct of examinations. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt on the same material could have come to a different conclusion it could not furnish ground for interference. This Court cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of committee. It could quash the order only if it finds that it was based on no material or the committee ignored some material which is considered could have resulted in a different conclusion. Since the decision of the examination committee does not suffer from any such error it is difficult to grant relief to petitioners. We are not oblivious of grave injustice which might be done to some of the students, may be even majority, because of refusal by this Court to interfere but we cannot ignore the deterioration in the standard of discipline of academic institutions. How this should be regulated or controlled should best be left to the discretion of those who are entrusted with this responsibility. If this Court starts substituting its own opinion in place of opinion expressed by authorities it shall result in chaos. It is well known that due to conduct of others even innocent persons suffer but the sufferings of few has to be tolerated in the larger interest of the society. As is usual in such matters it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ror in complying with the provisions of the Rules, Regulations or Notifications and to remedy any manifest injustice being perpetrated on the candidates. In judging the validity a notification containing provisions regarding steps to be taken when a report of mass malpractice is received it is to be kept in mind whether the provisions contained in the notification are relevant for achieving the purpose for which the notification is issued and if it. is found that the notification is relevant for and has a nexus with the purpose to be achieved then the notification cannot be said to be arbitrary and discriminatory. The High Court has failed to keep this principle in view while considering the validity of the notification in question. A notification cannot be struck down as discriminatory merely because in implementing the same injustice is likely to be suffered by some candidates. The impugned judgment does not show that the decision to strike down the two notifications is based on grounds sound in law and justified on facts. It is our considered view that the judgment of the High Court is unsustainable and has to be quashed. 21. Before parting with the case we would like to plac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
