S. Chatterji, J.
1.The present writ petition is at the instance of 41 students who appeared as private B. Ed. Examinees at U. N. College, Nalagaja Centre in the district of Mayurbhanj seeking reliefs as follows :
'......issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to have a thorough probe into the system, method and actual conduct of B. Ed. Examination, 1995 to determine the petitioners in any way guilty of any misconduct either in process or in respect of answers written in the examination papers and find out if the petitioners deserve the punishment meted out to them by the University by the order in Annexure-1 and if necessary command the 0. P. N. 1 to restore the marks in all papers hereby cancelling illegal notification in Annexure-1 or in the alternative command the opposite parties to hold a fresh examination, if the Hon'ble Court feels as a part of the Annual Examination, 1995 without fees and issue other order/direction as will do complete justice to the petitioners.'
2. It is stated in details that U. N. College at Nalagaja in the district of Mayurbhanj is a reputed College. Utkal University had chosen the same as a Centre for B. Ed. Examination and the Controller of Examinations, Utkal University by its letter dated 19-9-1995 published the programme for B. Ed. Examination of private candidates indicating that the said examination for the year 1995 would start from 20-11-1995.
3. It is contended that the result of the B. Ed. Examination was declared by the University Notification dated 20-3-1996 in which it was mentioned all the results of the U. N. College, Nalagaja Centre relating to B. Ed. Examination. 1995 (private) were withheld for the other reasons. Immediately after the publication of the results, the Principal by his letter dated 2-4-1996 wrote to the Controller of Examinations, Utkal University, explaining therein in regard to the acute adverse circumstances under which he joined and the risk and difficulty which he had undertaken to conduct the Examination. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they had not indulged in any unfair means nor they resorted to mass-malpractice in the examination. In fact, the petitioners have challenged the notification dated 26-4-1996 vide Annexure-1 which indicates, inte alia, that in pursuance of the decision of the Syndicate at Us meeting held on 20-4-1996 the result of. B. Ed. (Private) Examination, 1992 in respect of the candidates appeared at the U. N. College, Nalagaja in the district of Mayurbhanj has been cancelled for being reported to have been involved in mass malpractice. The main grievance of the petitioners is as to the cancellation of the examination and the consequential sufferings. Stating all these facts in details the petitioners have sought for the reliefs as indicated above.
4. The writ petition is contested by the University authorities, opposite parties 1 and 2, by filling a comprehensive affidavit sworn to by the Administrative Officer (General). It is disclosed, inter alia, in the said affidavit that the petitioners had appeared In the B. EH. (Private) Examination, 1995 conducted at U. N. College, Nalagaja, which commenced on 20-11-1995. As per the procedure, two members of Supervisors named Sri Prafulla Kumar Mohanty. Lecturer, P. G. Department of Zoology and Dr. Bina Dasr Reader, P. G. Department of Political Science, Utkal University were deputed to U. N. College, Nalagaja to supervise the Examination on 28-11-1995 when Examination for Paper-Ill was conducted. The supervisors supervised the Centre on that day and submitted their reports. It appears from the report of Sri P.K. Mohanty that 'all the Examinees were using papers and engaged in malpractice in all halls. Each candidate was using chits, papers openly'. The report of Dr. Bina Das is doubt that few examinees might be possessing incriminating materials but could not be detected due to highly defective sitting arrangement'. Copies of the reports are Annexure-1 and Annexure-1/1.
5. It is further disclosed that reports received from the supervisors were placed before the Examination Committee for consideration and the Committee at its meeting held on 25-1-1996 while considering the same resolved that 'the reports be placed before the Board of Conducting Examiners while considering results'. Accordingily the reports were placed before the Board of Conducting Examiners for consideration and the Board at its meeting held on 19-3-1995 while considering the same had resolved as follows :
'The Board after thorough review of the reports of both the Supervisors recommends that since the said examination has not been conducted according to the stipulations of the University the B. Ed. (Private) Examination, 1995 conducted in Paper-III on 28-11-1995 at U. N. College, Nalaggja Centre be cancelled. Further also, the Board recommended in this connection that the said College (U. N. College, Nalagaja)- be not permitted to hold B. Ed. (Private) Examination for at least three subsequent years.'
The counter affidavit further discloses that the reports of the Supervisors along with the recommendations of the Board of Conducting Examiners were placed before the Syndicate for consideration, and the Syndicate at its meeting held on 20-4-1996 resolved as follows :
N. College, Nalagaja be not permitted to hold B. Ed. (Private) Examination for at least three subsequent years and Paper-III examination held at that Centre on 23-11-1995 be cancelled.'
On the basis of the above decision of the Syndicate the result of B. Ed. (Private) Examination, 1995 in respect of the candidates appeared at the U.M. College, Nalgaja was cancelled vide Office Letter No. Ec.V/1303/96 dated 25-4-1996 and simultaneously the candidates were allowed to fill up the forms to appear the B. Ed. (Private) Examination, 199 6, if they so desired.. All other allegations of the petitioners have been controverted.
6. Mr. B. K. Patnaik, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners has very strenuously and with great tenacity argued the case before us. He has taken us through the averments made in the writ application in between the lines and anlysed the stand taken by the University 3utoritias in their counter. His main contention is that the acts done and or caused to have been done by the University authorities are so arbitrary, whimsical and capricious that the academic career of the students like the petitioners who are appearing as B. Ed, Examinees are at stake. Unless this Court intervenes with the matter the career of the petitioners would be marred and there would be great injustice in the matter. He has submitted that two reports of the Supervisors are contradictory in nature. Besides, the reports do not demonstrate the actual factum of malpractice. Thus, the reports are not objective in character, rather they are subjective in nature. The Principal of the College or the Centre Superintendent views were not taken. The examination committee did not consider the reports in the proper perspective, nor there is a proper inquiry as to whether the malpractice had actually been taken place or not. On the basis of such scanty reports of the Supervisors the Examination Committee proceeded which is otherwise unwarranted and uncalled for. The Syndicate in a stereotype manner has endorsed the view of the Examination Committee, and therefore the decision, which is challenged before us should be quashed and proper relief should be granted.
There is another limb of arguments of Mr. Patnaik inasmuch as he has submitted that even Paper-Ill of the examinees is cancelled, the University authorities ought to have taken steps to look into the other papers and if they are successful their results ought to have been published on consideration of the merits of the other papers. He has further submitted that Paper -III of the examinees should have been assessed and ought to have been looked into where they have scored high marks in comparison to the other papers. Besides, highlighting all the facts in the cumulative manner he has draw or the Court to a number of decisions.
7. He has drawn attention of the Court to the decision in the case of the Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Ch. Sinha and Ors. (AIR 1970 SC 1269), There the decision of the High Court quashing the stand taken by Bihar School Examination Board to cancel the examination was challenged and ultimately judgment of the High Court was set aside by the Apex Court holding as such :
'We are satisfied that no principle of natural justice was violated in this case. The Board through its Chairman and later itself reached the right conclusion that the examinations at this Centre had been vitiated by practising unfair means on a mass scale and the Board had every right to cancel the examination and order that a fresh examination be held. There was no need to give the examinees an opportunity of contesting this conclusion because the evidence in the case was perfectly plain and transparent......'
8. The next decision cited is AIR 1970 SC 150 (A. K. Kraipak and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.). The concept of violation of Rules of Natural Justice, bias and selection made by the Board was considered. We have gone through the said decision and we do not find that the said decision is at all helpful to the case of the petitioners.
9. The next decision brought to our notice has been reported in AIR 1980 SC 1402 (Km. Neelima Misra v. Dr. Harsnder Kaur Paintal and Ors.). The scope of administrative action, when becomes quasi judicial, recent shift is to 'fairness' in administrative action, scope of administrative law, vis-a-vis administrative action and duty to act with fairness were discussed. We are afraid the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the present case.
10. The decision reported in AIR 1982 Ori. 266 (Satyajit Roy Choucihury and Ors. v. Utkal University and Ors.) has been cited. We have gone through the decision very carefully. The anxiety of the two Judges of this Court is writ large in the said decision. The petitioner challenged cancellation of Examination results on the ground of mass malpractice, resorting of malpractice by almost all candidates reported by Centre Superintendent and Supervisors, the incriminating materials supplied to the candidates by outsiders, copy materials found in Examination hall on large scale and candidates. found using them were discussed. it was held that cancellation of the results were not improper. Ratio of AIR 1970 SC 1289 (supra) was followed. The judgment was delivered on 22-12-1981 in the said judgment there is observation :
The country can ill afford to have a posterity of ignoramuses The malady has spread so wide and so deep that it deserve: consideration from educationists, guardians and the Government. Where the future of posterity is involved, procrastination is unwise and to lie by is insensible. Let not the elders contribute to the deterioration of standard and destruction of norms by their callousness.'
At the end of the judgment we find that the then Chief Justice made a brief and pragmatic end which is as follows ;
'......The concern my learned brother has expressed should be shared by all today so that we may look for a better tomorrow.'
The expectation, anxiety and the hope expressed by the Division Bench of this Court as long as in 1981 should, not be lost sight of.
11. Our attention is also drawn to a decision reported in AIR 1991 Ori. 303 (Sushamarani Das v. Board of Secondary Education, Orissa). Another Division Bench of this Court though did not interfere with the cancellation of the Examination, has considered the circumstances as elaborated in paragraph-11 of the said decision at page 309. It was commented that no material was produced to question the correctness of reports submitted by the Flying Squad. It cannot be said that the decision of the Committee was based on no materials or that it was illegal/irrational/arbitrary or that the committee was guided by extraneous or irrelevant consideration.
12. Our attention is also drawn to two other decisions reported in AIR 1987 All 208 (Rajiv Ratna Shukla and Anr. v. University of Allahabad and Ors.) and in 79 (1995) CLT 612 (Sri Deepak Kumar Pradhan and Ors. v. Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa and Ors.). In AIR 1987 Ail 208,we find about the non-interference by the Allahabad High Court as to the decision of the University to hold fresh examination alter cancellation. In the last case, however, the Division Bench of this Court considered that there was no sufficient materials and there was no proper enquiry and the decision of the Board was not right.
13. We have very patiently heard ' Mr. Patnaik for the petitioners . We have every sympathy for any academic matter and in particular where the fate of the students at large is involved. We have also heard Mrs. Sikdar who had produced the original records, relevant reports, resolution of the Committee and the resolution of the Syndicate. Regard being had to the materials on record, we are of the view that the report of both Supervisors as quoted above are clear, unequivocal and significant. As these reports of the Supervisors have been considered by the Examination Committee there is no scopa for asking any report from the Centre Superintendent or the Principal.
14. Our atention is drawn to the Orissa Universities First Statutes, 1990 and Statute 214 (1) indicates, inter alia, about unfair means in examination. it runs as follows:
'All instance of unfair mean in examinations whether reported by the Centre Superintendents/Invigilators/Supervisors/Observers/Examiners or otherwise shall be placed before the appropriate Board of Conducting Examiners by the Controller of Examinations as soon as practicable but preferably before the results of the relevant examination are passed for publication. The Board of Conducting Examiners shall consider the reports and other materials, if any, and make a report of the scope and extent of the unfair means resorted to and specifically whether use has been made of unauthorised or incriminating material referred to in the reports or produced before the Board.'
15. The aforesaid Statute 214 is very clear that the Board of Conducting Examiners has to consider the reports and there is no mandatory provision that the Centre Superintendent has to endorse or his report is required. The two supervisors have filed the reports. Those reports have been considered by the Board of Conducting Examiners and its resolution has been referred to the Syndicate and the Syndicate on its own wisdom has also accepted and had taken a decision. The three stages have gone one by one, the supervisors at the first level, Board of Conducting Examiners at the second level and the Syndicate at the third. There is no allegation of bias either against the supervisors or against the Board of Conducting Examiners or the Syndicate. in view of the aforesaid reported decisions and in view of the anxiety as to the future of the students nothing has been produced before us to interfere in this matter. Although we have profound sympathy for the students' interest and we appreciate the persuation of the learned counsel Mr. Patnaik to argue the case on behalf of the students but we are afraid that there is nothing for us to interfere in the matter. That apart the University has not taken any harsh steps against the students. It is produced before us that under the Regulation the students have to pass in every paper and even one paper, namely, third paper being cancelled, there is no scope to consider the marks in other papers to declare the result of the students as being passed. Failure in one paper entails failure in the entire examination. The Syndicate has indicated that the students be given a fresh opportunity to appear in the year 1996 as there in nothing for compartmental examination or otherwise. We find that this decision is also quite justified and does not call for interference by the writ Court.
16. For the foregoing reasons, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter and accordingly we dismiss the writ application. No order as to costs.
Dipak Misra, J.
17. I agree.