1962 (8) TMI 115 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court decision on examination result cancellation highlights broad charges & importance of circumstantial evidence

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the order cancelling the respondent's examination result, disagreeing with the High Court's initial decision. It ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the order cancelling the respondent's examination result.2. Competence and authority of the appellant to pass the cancellation order.3. Regularity and fairness of the enquiry conducted.4. Whether the impugned order was supported by any evidence.5. Consideration of circumstantial evidence and probabilities by the Enquiry Committee.6. Role of the High Court under Article 226 in reviewing decisions of domestic tribunals.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the order cancelling the respondent's examination result:The respondent challenged the validity of the order passed by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad, cancelling his result at the High School Examination held in 1960. The High Court initially set aside this order on the grounds that it was not supported by any evidence. However, upon review, it was found that the High Court erred in its assumption regarding the nature of the charge against the respondent. The charge was broader, including possibilities of copying from another candidate, connivance, or copying from a common source.2. Competence and authority of the appellant to pass the cancellation order:The respondent raised contentions against the competence and authority of the Board to pass the cancellation order. These contentions were rejected by the High Court in a companion writ petition, and thus, the challenge to the validity of the order on these points of law was not sustained.3. Regularity and fairness of the enquiry conducted:The enquiry was quasi-judicial in nature, and the High Court would be justified in quashing the order if it was not based on any evidence. The enquiry conducted by the Sub-Committee included obtaining an explanation from the respondent, who denied using unfair means but admitted the identical wrong answers. The High Court's assumption that the charge was narrowly framed led to its erroneous conclusion.4. Whether the impugned order was supported by any evidence:The High Court concluded that the order was not supported by any evidence. However, the Supreme Court found that this conclusion was based on an incorrect assumption about the charge. The charge included possibilities of copying from another candidate, connivance, or copying from a common source. The identical incorrect answers provided circumstantial evidence supporting the charge of unfair means.5. Consideration of circumstantial evidence and probabilities by the Enquiry Committee:The Enquiry Committee considered the circumstantial evidence and the prevailing conditions at the examination center, which included large-scale adoption of unfair means and a disturbed atmosphere. The identical incorrect answers in the respondent's and another candidate's papers suggested the use of unfair means, either through direct copying or from a common source. The High Court failed to consider this circumstantial evidence and the broader context of the examination environment.6. Role of the High Court under Article 226 in reviewing decisions of domestic tribunals:The Supreme Court emphasized that while the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 226 to quash orders not supported by any evidence, it should not act as an appellate body over decisions of domestic tribunals. The High Court's role is limited to ensuring that the enquiry was fair and that natural justice was followed. The Supreme Court noted that educational bodies have the jurisdiction to decide relevant questions based on evidence and probabilities, and courts should be slow to interfere unless there is a clear lack of evidence or procedural fairness.Conclusion:The Supreme Court agreed with the appellants that the High Court's order was not justified but refrained from setting it aside due to the respondent's subsequent academic progress and the appellants' concession. The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of considering circumstantial evidence and maintaining the limited scope of judicial review in such matters. There would be no order as to costs.