Kumari Uma Vs. Board of Pre-university Education - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/378148
SubjectConstitution
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided OnOct-31-1987
Case NumberW.A. Nos.1106 of 1985
JudgeBopanna and ;Swami, JJ.
Reported inILR1989KAR768; 1987(3)KarLJ477
ActsConstitution of India - Articles 20(3) and 226
AppellantKumari Uma
RespondentBoard of Pre-university Education
Appellant AdvocateDalvi and Dalvi, Rangarajan, M.S. Subbarayappa, H.S. Jois, C.N. Srikantaiah, Ravivarma Kumar, B.G. Nayak, G.S. Visweswara, P. Mahesh, M.N. Seshagiri, G.P. Shiva Prakash, K.R.D. Karanth, A. Krishna Bh
Respondent AdvocateN. Devadas, HCGP
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
constitution of india - article 226 - certiorari -- jurisdiction discretionary -- court to be satisfied parties have approached court with clean hands -- court can look into records resulting in impugned orders -- notwithstanding non-compliance with natural justice, decision being void and non-est, under exceptional and special circumstances, court may decline to exercise power.;it is not possible to contend that this court which is clothed with the jurisdiction to issue writs in the nature of certiorari should not look into the records which had resulted in the impugned orders......the jurisdiction conferred on this court is a discretionary jurisdiction and this court must be satisfied that the parties have approached this court with clean hands.;on the facts and circumstances of the.....
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
bopanna, j.1. these appeals are directed against the common order of rama jois, j. in writ petitions 5320 of 1980 and other connected writ petitions disposed of on 11-4-1985. by that order the learned judge dismissed the writ petitions of the appellants/petitioners on the ground that these are not fit cases for exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the constitution.2. appellants are all students who had taken their examinations in various subjects in the p.u.c. examination conducted by the pre-university board (hereinafter referred to as the 'board') in the month of april, 1982. the results of the examination were announced in the month of june, 1982. each of the appellants had failed in one or other subjects and consequently, they failed in the.....
Judgment:

Bopanna, J.

1. These appeals are directed against the common order of Rama Jois, J. in Writ Petitions 5320 of 1980 and other connected Writ Petitions disposed of on 11-4-1985. By that order the learned Judge dismissed the Writ Petitions of the Appellants/Petitioners on the ground that these are not fit cases for exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

2. Appellants are all students who had taken their examinations in various subjects in the P.U.C. examination conducted by the Pre-University Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') in the month of April, 1982. The results of the examination were announced in the month of June, 1982. Each of the appellants had failed in one or other subjects and consequently, they failed in the examination. After the results were announced, they invoked the provisions of Rule 38 of the Rules relating to Pre-University Examinations published by the State Government in Notification No. MED 119 UDC 71 dated 13th October 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). Under that Rule, these appellants applied for re- totaling the marks in the subjects in which they had failed. On re- totaling it was found that the total marks as entered in the answer books were correct and the marks entered in the facing sheet of the answer scripts in the prescribed proforma were also found to be correct. However, these appellants made representations to the Director of the Board stating that though the re- totaling was correct, some of the answers had not been valued and therefore, additional marks should be given to such of the answers which had not been valued by the examiner. On these representations, the Director of the Board got the answer papers of the appellants valued in so far as they related to the alleged answers not valued earlier by the Valuer and awarded additional marks in consultation with the Subject Expert nominated by him and entered the additional marks on a separate proforma prescribed for the purpose and directed the issue of Pass Certificates to all these appellants by adding the marks so given to the total marks already obtained by them and found to be correct. The net result was that all these appellants who had failed earlier were declared as passed and they were given Pass Certificate accordingly.

3. After some time complaints were received by the State Government that a number of candidates including the appellants had resorted to certain mal-practices after the declaration of results by the Board in the month of June, 1982 and therefore, there should be an enquiry into such mal-practices. The State Government considered the gravity of mal-practice to which a large number of students had allegedly resorted to and referred this matter to the Vigilance Commission. The Vigilance Commissioner, after making the necessary inquiry submitted his report to the Government and on the basis of this report the Government ordered investigation by the Corps of Detectives ('COD' for short).

4. The COD made a detailed investigation and found that all these petitioners had resorted to certain mal-practices under the guise of obtaining re- totaling of the marks. The COD also examined each of the answer books submitted by these appellants and found that these appellants had interpolated certain answers in the answer books under the guise of obtaining re-totaling of the marks and after such interpolations only they were given certain additional marks by the Director and Pass Certificates were issued to them; that the grant of additional marks was obtained by practicing fraud and therefore, the Certificates issued to them should be cancelled. There was also a departmental enquiry against the Director and in that departmental enquiry the Director was found guilty and dismissed from service. The COD also filed charge-sheets against these appellants and the criminal cases are now pending on the file of the Special Judge, Bangalore City. In the meanwhile the appellants filed Writ Petitions challenging the orders made by the Board cancelling the Pass Certificates issued to them on various grounds. The main grounds urged before the learned Single Judge were :

(1) That the orders of cancellation were violative of the principles of natural justice since the appellants were not given a proper opportunity of being heard to explain the 'show-cause' notices issued to them;

(2) That the impugned orders of cancellation were hit by the principle of equitable estoppel since the appellants had been permitted to continue their studies by virtue of the Pass Certificates issued to them and therefore, the impugned orders of cancellation could not have been passed by the authorities after they were permitted to continue their higher studies;

(3) That there had been discrimination in issuing the orders of cancellation of certificates, in that, in more than hundred other cases though the authorities found that the candidates had resorted to mal-practice, no action was taken against them.

Though a number of other contentions were taken in the Writ Petitions, these are the only contentions urged before the learned single Judge. It should be noticed at this stage that neither the Board nor the Director of Pre-University Education filed any return controverting the averments made by the appellants. But, the learned Government Pleader who appeared for them had produced the original answer scripts submitted by them to the Board and on the basis of those answer scripts he submitted that it was not a case where this Court should exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the Writ Petitions before the learned Judge, criminal cases against all these appellants were registered but charge-sheets had not been filed.

5. The learned Judge who had the benefit of going through the answer scripts submitted by the appellants found that it was true that having regard to the Rules of natural justice, the Board should have set-out the facts which had been set-out by the learned Judge in para-12 of his order and called upon each of the petitioners to show cause why the Pass Certificates should not be withdrawn and then should have proceeded to pass final orders on consideration of the reply, if any, furnished by them; that the Board had not done so, still the alternative submission made by the learned Government Pleader in view of indisputable facts, had to be accepted and this Court should decline to interfere in these cases. According to the learned Judge these cases were really unprecedented; that each of the appellants had personally verified the answer scripts and found that there was no change in the mark and he/she had to accept the declaration of the results and the marks. But, they represented to the Director stating that some of the answers had remained not valued and requested him to award more marks which was prohibited under Rule 37 of the Rules since under Rule 37 there was an absolute prohibition for the revaluation of the answers given by the candidates in their answer scripts. On the plea of estoppel raised by the petitioners, he found that this plea could not be invoked as there was no incorrect representation of facts on the part of the Board to all the petitioners in the first instance and that the petitioners made an unprecedented representation and secured more mark R which was impermissible under the Rules. Incidentally, the learned Judge also considered the question of delay on the part of the Board in issuing the order of cancellation, but he did not accept the contention of the petitioners that delay in issuing the orders of cancellation had not vitiated the impugned orders since, in his view, the purity in administration should prevail and in the interest of the Department of Education, it should enjoy confidence of the public and therefore the impugned action against the appellants should be sustained and notwithstanding the delay, this Court should not set-aside such right action. On the plea of discrimination, the learned Judge found that it is a matter for the Government to look into the allegations against the other hundred candidates against whom no action was taken. But the mere fact that no action had been taken against them would not attract the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution.

6. Before us, the learned Counsel for the appellants urged the same contentions which were taken before the learned single Judge.

7. Sri Rangarajan appearing for the appellants has vehemently contended that the learned Judge having found that the petitioners were not afforded a fair opportunity of hearing them in respect of the case made against them and that the impugned orders were violative of principles of natural justice, should have set-aside the said orders of cancellation and directed the Board to hold a fresh enquiry. According to the learned Counsel the learned Judge grossly erred in looking into the records produced by the Board and in coming to his own conclusions on the basis of those records since the appellants did not have the opportunity of meeting the case of the Board in the absence of any return tiled by them, though in the course of arguments we did find that there was some substance in this contention. However, it was brought to our notice by the learned Government Pleader that the appellants were permitted by the learned Judge to inspect the records and satisfy themselves about the contentions made by the learned Government Pleader on the basis of those records. The appellants availed themselves of that opportunity but did not choose to file any additional statement of facts controverting what was found against them in the records. As the learned Counsel had made a serious grievance about the procedure adopted by the learned Judge we made it clear to the learned Counsel that the appellants could have the same opportunity in these appeals also and on going through the records, if they so choose, they could file an additional statement in support of their plea. But, this opportunity was not availed of by the appellants on the ground that since criminal cases were pending against them in Criminal Courts, any statement they may make would prejudice their defence in criminal cases, and it amounts to double jeopardy which is violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution. We will consider this plea separately at the appropriate stage.

8. Some more facts which will have to be noticed before we consider the contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellants are that all these candidates are supposed to have had a very good academic career and therefore, their failure in the subjects concerned came as a surprise to them and that is the reason they asked for revaluation of the answers in question. About the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 886 of 1985 who applied for revaluation, it is stated that he was a First Class student throughout and there was absolutely no reason for his failure in Sanskrit paper which is his Second Language. He had passed Sanskrit Examination conducted by Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bangalore, and his case is that he could never fail in Sanskrit with that proficiency in Sanskrit language. In so far as the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 843 of 1985 is concerned, it is stated that she is also a First Class student throughout. But, she had secured only 23 marks in Mathematics and after re-valuation she was awarded 35 marks. She has passed M.B.B.S. Examination and she is now a house surgeon and is also married. Appellant in Writ Appeal No. 1106 of 1985 had also failed in Sanskrit having secured only 26 marks. But, after revaluation she obtained 32 marks. In the very same examinations she secured 74 marks in Chemistry and 85 marks in Mathematics. She withdrew from the examination in Chemistry and appeared again in that subject and she got 96 marks in that subject. She is an engineering student and she was not allowed to appear for the examination because of the pendency of the Writ Petition. Likewise the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 1007 of 1985 was not permitted to take the final examination in Commerce because of the pendency of the Writ Petition, The other appellants had not obtained passing marks in the subjects in question, but, after re-valuation they were declared as passed by virtue of the additional marks given to them, as some of the answers remained unvalued originally as alleged by them.

9. As noticed earlier the learned Judge had the benefit of scrutinising the answer scripts of all these appellants and on the basis of the observations made by him he came to the conclusion that these are not fit cases for exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

10. But the serious grievance made by the learned Counsel for the appellants in these appeals is that the learned Judge was wrong in dismissing the petitions, after having issued notices to the Government but without calling upon the respondents to file their statement of objections. He submitted that the appellants were greatly prejudiced by the fact that neither the 1st respondent nor the 2nd respondent had filed their return meeting the averments of the appellants and, therefore, the observations made by the teamed Judge on the basis of the answer scripts produced for his perusal had seriously prejudiced the case of the appellants as they did not have any opportunity of meeting points made by the learned Judge.

11. We will consider this aspect of the case at the appropriate stage. But, it is contended by the learned Government Advocate for the respondents that the appellants did have an opportunity of inspection of the answer scripts before the learned Judge, and they had also been given an opportunity by the learned Judge to have their say by filing additional statements if they so desired, after scrutiny of the answer scripts. But, they did not avail themselves of this opportunity. Though the records of the proceedings do not disclose that such an opportunity was given, there is no serious controversy over this aspect of the case, however, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the learned Judge committed a serious error by looking into the answer books after he rightly came to the conclusion that the impugned orders were violative of the principles of natural justice, since the appellants were not given sufficient opportunity of meeting the allegations made in the 'show cause' notices served on them.

12. Mr. Rangarajan, submitted that the learned Judge was wrong in looking into the answer scripts since the appellants were excluded from participation in the decision making process of a quasi-judicial authority. The only way according to him, they could have fully met the case against them was not by inspection of the answer scripts produced for the first time before the learned Judge but by filing a fresh statement in a fresh enquiry explaining their conduct and explaining the allegations made against them in the show cause notices.

13. He invited our attention to the observation made by the learned Judge in para 10(10A) of the impugned order and submitted that that observation was ambivalent and not determinative; that since Criminal prosecution in respect of those appellants was under contemplation, the learned Judge should have avoided the inspection of the answer scripts for recording his findings against them: that we also should not fall into the same error by looking into the answer scripts since the enquiry that was contemplated was a quasi judicial enquiry and, if we come to the conclusion that the quasi judicial enquiry was conducted by the authorities without complying with the requirements of the principles of natural justice, any order made by the authorities pursuant to that enquiry which is violative of the principles of natural justice is not enforceable in the eye of law and is void; that unfortunately, the learned Judge at the time of disputing of the Writ Petitions, did not have the benefit of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Olga Tellis case'; that the principles of natural justice had been given a very liberal and extended meaning in Olga Tellis and therefore, the learned Judge was in relying on a passage from the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.L. KAPOOR v. JAGMOHAN : [1981]1SCR746 that the principle in Kapoor's case was wrongly applied by the learned Judge and, if his attention had been drawn to the decision in Olga Tellis, the learned Judge would have desisted from looking into the records and based his conclusions in the light of the impressions gathered by him from the answer scripts; that a void decision made by the authority could not have been converted into a valid one by looking into the answer scripts and, therefore, we should desist from going through the answer scripts and should decide the appeals purely on the merits of the legal principles that are applicable to the facts of the case; that the scrutiny of the answer scripts would be an exercise in futility, since even after the perusal of the answer scripts nothing more than what had been summarised by the learned Judge in para 10A of his order would be found; that it would not be possible to hold that any particular student, not even one, was guilty of the alleged malpractice of inserting answers in the respective answer books fraudulently or deliberately after the declaration of the results and there is no direct evidence of any kind to connect the students with the alleged malpractice allegedly committed by them in the answer scripts; that no evidence was presented against them from which such an inference could be possible; that there is only circumstantial evidence, the various links in the evidence have to be established in such a way as to rule out the reasonable likelihood of innocence of the accused and that could be done only by a fresh enquiry by giving an opportunity to the appellants to state their case in respect of each specific allegation against them by confronting them with the answer scripts produced by the authorities, by seeking their explanation to the specific answer said to have been interpolated or introduced subsequently under the guise of re-valuation of the answers given by them. For these reasons, the learned Counsel very strongly contended that we should desist from looking into the answer scripts and should not commit the same mistake made by the learned judge while giving his findings against the appellants. His other submission in support of his objections against any such scrutiny of the answer scripts is that in view of the pending criminal prosecution any observation made by this Court on the basis of such scrutiny of the answer scripts would have adverse consequences in the criminal cases pending against the appellants and would seriously jeopardise their defence in the pending criminal actions. He further contended that the learned Judge ought to have kept in view the decision of the Supreme Court in SEGARA SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB AIR 1984 SC 1499 and in view of the admitted fact that out of 141 students who were involved in the re-valuation process, over 100 students got the benefit of such re-valuation but only 41 students including the appellants were found guilty of misconduct alleged against them. Out of 41 candidates whose marks cards have been withdrawn, only the appellants have been proceeded against for the criminal conspiracy and other offences under the penal code. He submitted that in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Segara Singh's case, the appellants have been discriminated by the authorities, as on the same set of facts no action had been taken against the other students numbering over 100. It was nextly contended that the initial burden of showing discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution was on the appellants. But, once it is established before this Court that over 100 students had been exonerated, the burden is shifted to the State and in the absence of any return by the authorities rebutting this contention, this Court should proceed on the basis that there is an obvious discrimination on the face of the record.

14. On facts, he submitted that the learned Judge was wrong in coming to the conclusion that the rules relating to the conduct of the Pre-University examinations framed by the State Government did not provide for re-valuation of the answer scripts. He invited our attention to Rules 37 and 38 of the Rules published by the State Government. These rules are not statutory rules, but they are framed by the State Government for regulating the conduct of the Pre University Examinations. Rule 37 of the Rules reads as under:

'Under no circumstances, revaluation of answer scripts will be permitted by the Board. Hence no applications made by the candidate or by any other person in this behalf shall be entertained.'

Rule 38(a) reads as under:

'Any candidate of the examinations conducted by the Board who desires to cause re-totaling of marks/totals in subject/s may apply within 30 days from the date of publication of the results of the examination in which he appeared as a candidate, on payment of Rs. 10 per subject, to the Board. The amount should be credited to the head of account 'XXII Education - F. j. Miscellaneous-14. Board of Pre-University Education - (ii) Miscellaneous receipts' and the Treasury Challan enclosed to the application No. applications received after the due date shall be considered.'

Rule 38(b) is not very material for the purpose of these appeals.

15. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the applications made by the appellants were not for re-totaling of the marks, but for valuation of some of the answers on the ground that those answers written by them were not valued by the examiner and, therefore, they were entitled to additional marks to those answers after those answers were valued subsequently. But, the learned Judge wrongly took the view that there was no provision at all for re-valuation of the answer scripts and, therefore, the application itself for such re-valuation was lacking in bona fides and should not have been entertained. The appellants case is that they had not asked for re-valuation, but for valuation of the answers which were not valued earlier by the examiners and that could be done by the authorities in terms of the general powers and functions of the Board under the Government Order dated 3-12-1970. By that Government Order, the Board was given the powers to appoint examiners and supervisors and fix their remuneration. It was also given the powers generally to do all such other acts whether incidental to the powers aforesaid or not as may be necessary or desirable.

16. Mr. Rangarajan submitted that, if this general power conferred on the Board is read along with other rules framed by the State Government, it is permissible for the authorities to entertain the applications of the appellants to value the answers which had not been valued earlier and, therefore, it was wrong on the part of the learned Judge to come to the conclusions that no regulation had been framed for such valuation. According to him, even under Rule 37 revision of the marks obtained by the candidates could be made if it is found that some of the answers were not valued by the examiners and such revision would not amount to re-valuation of the answers.

17. In the course of the arguments, it was ordered by us that the answer scripts produced before the learned Judge should be summoned from the Criminal Courts since it was felt that examination of those answer scripts would be necessary in order to understand the reasoning of the learned Judge in rejecting the contentions of the appellants. Accordingly answer scripts were obtained. We also afforded an opportunity to the appellants to examine the answer scripts following the decision of the Supreme Court in Olga Tellis and to file additional statements, if so desired after looking into the answer scripts. We gave sufficient time to the appellants for this purpose and adjourned the cases to hear the learned Senior Counsel on this point. Mr. Rangarajan addressed arguments once again on this aspect of the case and according to him the statements that they may make in this Court after scrutiny of the answer scripts would be violative of the Constitutional protection conferred on them under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in SMT. NANDINI SATPATHY v. P.L. DANI : 1978CriLJ968 to drive home the peril to which the appellants would be exposed to, if they were to file their additional statement after the scrutiny of the answer scripts. He also submitted that they would not make any statement since the criminal prosecutions were pending in the Criminal Court. It was brought to the notice of the learned Counsel that, if any statement were to be made, this Court could protect the appellants rights and safeguard their interest in the Criminal Court by making suitable observations and issuing directions to the effect that any statement made by the appellants in this Court should not be taken into account and should not be deemed to prejudice their defence in the criminal cases pending against them. Even then it was maintained by the learned Counsel that any direction or observation in our Judgment would not have the effect of saving the appellants from the peril to which they would be exposed in the criminal prosecutions against them in the light of Article 20(3) of the Constitution. He relied on the observation made by Justice Krishna Iyer in Smt. Nandini Satpathy's case on this point.

18. The learned Government Pleader supported and justified the order of the learned Judge on all the points held against the appellants. His main contention was that this is not a fit case where this Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. According to him, the learned Judge has found that the appellants could not take the benefit of their fraudulent acts and seek reliefs from this Court by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction and that finding of the learned Judge is not open to interference in appeal. He also maintained that the Appellate Court should be very slow in disturbing the order of the learned Judge unless it comes to the conclusion that the Judgment cannot be supported either on facts or on law.

19. The learned Judge has observed that these are extraordinary cases which had no precedent and he was of the opinion that there was fraud on a massive scale in collusion with the Board authorities.

20. On these rival contentions of the parties, the first point for consideration is whether we would be wrong in looking into the answer scripts ourselves before we proceed to consider the contentions of the appellants on merits.

21. It should be noticed that a writ in the nature of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution is an extraordinary remedy conferred on the aggrieved parties and that remedy is available to them under certain specified circumstances.

22. in dealing with the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court in T.C. BASAPPA v. T. NAGAPPA AND ANR. : [1955]1SCR250 observed :

'The language used in Articles 32 and 226 of our Constitution is very wide and the powers of the Supreme Court as well as of all the High Courts in India extend to issuing of orders, writs or directions including writs in the nature of 'habeas corpus, mandamus, quo warranto, prohibition and certiorari' as may be considered necessary for enforcement of the fundamental rights and in the case of the High Courts, for other purposes as well. In view of the express provisions in our Constitution we need not now look back to the early history or the procedural technicalities of these writs in English law, nor feel oppressed by any difference or change of opinion expressed in particular cases by English Judges. We can make an order or issue a writ in the nature of 'certiorari' in all appropriate cases and in appropriate manner, so long as we keep to the broad and fundamental principal that regulate the exercise of jurisdiction in the matter of granting such writs in English law.'

On the essential features of this extra-ordinary jurisdiction the Supreme Court observed :

'The expression 'judicial acts' includes the exercise of quasi-judicial functions by administrative bodies or other authorities or persons obliged to exercise such functions and is used in contrast with what are purely ministerial acts. Atkin L.J. thus summed up the law on this point in 'Rex v. Electricity Commissioner', 1924-1 KB 171 at page 205(C) :

'Whenever any body or persons having legal authority to determine questions affecting the rights of subjects and having the duty to act judicially act in excess of their legal authority they are subject to the controlling jurisdiction of the King's Bench Division exercised in these writs.'The second essential feature of a writ of 'certiorari' is that the control which is exercised through it over judicial or quasi-judicial Tribunals or bodies is not in an appellate but supervisory capacity. In granting a writ of 'certiorari' the superior Court does not exercise the powers of an Appellate Tribunal. It does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior Tribunal purports to be based. It demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous but does not substitute its own views for those of the inferior Tribunal. The offending order or proceeding so to say is put out of the way as one which should not be used to the detriment of any person, vide per Lord Cairns in 'Walsall's Overseers v. L & N.W. Rly. Co.' (1879) 4 AC 30 at page 39(D).

The supervision of the superior Court exercised through writs of 'certiorari' goes on two points, as has been expressed by Lord Sumner in 'King v. Nat Bell Liquors Ltd.', (1922) 2 AC 128 at page 156(E). One is the area of inferior jurisdiction and the qualifications and conditions of its exercise; the other is the observance of law in the course of its exercise. These two heads normally cover all the grounds on which a writ of 'certiorari' could be demanded. In fact there is little difficulty in the enunciation of the principles; the difficulty realty arises in applying the principles to the facts of a particular case.

'Certiorari' may and is generally granted when a Court has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction. The want of jurisdiction may arise from the nature of the subject matter of the proceeding or from the absence of some preliminary proceeding or the Court itself may not be legally constituted or suffer from certain disability by reason of extraneous circumstances, vide 'Halsbury, 2nd edition, Vol.IX page 880. When the jurisdiction of the Court depends upon the existence of some collateral fact, it is well settled that the Court cannot by a wrong decision of the fact give it jurisdiction which it would not otherwise possess, vide -'Burbury v. Fuller', (1854) 9 Ex 111 (F) ;- R v. Income Tax Special Purposes Commissioner', (1889) 21 QBD 313(G).

A Tribunal may be competent to enter upon an enquiry but in making the enquiry it may act in flagrant disregard of the rules of procedure or where no particular procedure is prescribed, it may violate the principles of natural justice. A writ of 'certiorari' may be available in such cases. An error in the decision or determination itself may also be amenable to a writ of 'certiorari' but it must be a manifest error apparent on the face of the proceedings, e.g. when it is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law. In other words, it is a patent error which can be corrected by 'certiorari' but not a mere wrong decision.'

In the light of this enunciation of law by the Supreme Court, it is not possible to contend that this Court which is clothed with the jurisdiction to issue writs in the nature of certiorari should not look into the records which had resulted in the impugned orders. The impugned orders are based on the proceedings of the enquiry held by the authorities under the relevant rules touching the conduct of the examinations held by the Board. The appellants themselves are invoking certain provisions of the Rules framed by the Government to sustain the orders made in their favour by the of the Board after the so called valuation of the answers which according to them remained unvalued at the time of the first announcement of the results. The very basis of their reliefs is founded on their assertion that some of the answers written by them in the subjects in question were not valued by the examiners and, therefore, failure on the part of the examiners necessitated the valuation of those answers and that is why they submitted their application to the Director for valuation of those answers. To take one example, in C.C.No. 26 of 1987 which corresponds to Writ Appeal No. 886 of 1985, the records disclose that the appellant had made an application for re-totaling of the marks in Sanskrit subject. That application was dated 21-6-1982. He had paid the necessary fee for re-totaling as is evident from the challan found in the record. The main answer book in the Sanskrit paper contains a facing sheet with instructions to candidates. That sheet also contains certain columns for filling up the marks awarded to the candidates. The total marks secured by the appellant in the facing sheet are 22. The appellant was informed that the re-totaling was correct. Thereafter he had made an application as follows :

'Dear Sir,

Sub:- re- totaling in respect of

Register No. 506297.

I wish to state that the answers to the following questions written, do not appear to have been valued.

Question Nos.:- 1(a)(iii), 3(b)(i)and (iii), 5(d)and

3(a)(iii).

I shall be grateful if they could be got valued and the benefit if any given to me.

Thanking you,

Your's obediently

Sd/- Bheema Rao B.R.'

This application is dated 29-6-82, i.e., after about 8 days after he was informed that on re- totaling his marks scored in Sanskrit were correct. On this application the Director had appointed a subject expert, who on his instructions valued the questions which according to the appellant had not been valued. The subject Expert on Sheet 34 of the records has given the following report:

'The A.E. who valued the above mentioned Regd.No. has given appropriate marks for the answers which he has valued. But he has not valued the Question No. 1(a)(iii), for that three marks can be given. For the memory passage four and half marks can be given. For the grammar passage three marks has to be given. For annotation two marks can be given.

In my opinion the candidate has to get total 12 1/2 marks (Twelve and half) which has not been valued by the A.E.

So his marks will be 34 1/2 or 35 in total.'

This is signed by the Subject Expert. This does not bear any date. On this note put up by the Subject Expert, the following noting is made by the office of the Director:

'The subject expert opines that some of the answers have not (sic) valued and after valuing the same, the marks changes to 35.'

On this noting the remarks of the Assistant Director were obtained in Kannada as follows :

The Director endorsed the same view in Kannada :

On the basis of these records, the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 886 of 1985 has challenged the impugned order made against him subsequently. So, it is futile to contend that these records which also contain the answer script in the subject in question should not be looked into by this Court to satisfy itself whether it should invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction.

23. So on the basis of the office note made by the Assistant Director and endorsed by the Director, a revised marks sheet was issued declaring the appellant as having passed in Sanskrit having scored 35 marks. The marks obtained by the appellant originally in the said subject are :

Sanskrit:

Question No.1.

9

Question No. 2.

0

Question No. 3.

4

Question No. 4.

6

Question No. 5.

3

Total :.

--------

22

--------

This shows that all the questions have been assessed, the marks have been totalled and verified with reference to copy of the marks card and found to be correct. The fact that after re- totaling the marks scored by the candidate at the time of original valuation is found to be correct is also noticed in the facing sheet to the answer script to which we have made a brief reference earlier. In the facing sheet, an endorsement is made by the officer who checked the answer paper as follows:

'No change.

Checked.

Id/- 22/6'

So both in the facing sheet as also in the endorsement given by the officer after the application for re- totaling was made, it is seen that the candidate answered only five questions in the Sanskrit paper and all the five questions including their sub-divisions had been valued as could be seen from the marks entered in red ink against each of the questions. In Question No. 1, he was given 9 marks including the marks given for the sub-divisions. In Question No. 2, he was given zero marks including the marks for two sub-divisions in the question. In Question No. 3, he was given 4 marks including the marks given for the two subdivisions under that question. In Question No. 4 he was given 6 marks including the marks given for the three subdivisions under that question. In Question No. 5, he was given 3 marks including the marks given for the three subdivisions under that question. Therefore, this Court could proceed on the basis that the appellant in this appeal had answered only five questions and all those five questions had been valued by the examiner as is evident from the records found at sheets 21 and 37 (red ink mark of the records). However, consequent on the valuation of the alleged unvalued answers, as noticed earlier, he was declared as passed having scored 35 marks in Sanskrit examination.

24. Now the point for consideration is whether the candidate was aware of the fact when he made the application on 29-6-1982 that answers to Question Nos.1(a)(iii), 3(b)(i) and (iii), 5(d) and 3(a)(iii) were not valued. So the next part of our enquiry should be with reference to these answers which according to him had not been valued. That takes us to the answer script submitted by the candidate in the Sanskrit examination. The answer script is also part of the records. The candidate answered question 1(a) in page 1 of the answer script. Questions 2(i) and (ii) he has answered in pages 2, 3 and 4 of the answer script. On page 4, instead of answering Question No. 3, he has answered Question No. 4(i). He answered Questions Nos.4(ii) and (v) on pages 5 and 6, Then he has answered Question Nos.5(a) and (c). After answering all those questions, he has taken up Question No. 3. However, on the next page, he has answered again Question No. 1(a)(v) and then he has gone back to Question No. 3(a). Again he has gone back to Question 1(b) and then to 5(c) and thereafter to Question 3(a)(ii)and (vi). Thereafter he answered Question No. 1(a)(iii) and 3(b)(i)and (ii). Again he has gone back to 5(d) and thereafter to 3(a)(iii). It could thus be seen from this answer script that his answers are all jumbled up and not in the sequence that was ordinarily expected of him.

25. Now the answers for which he sought valuation are Questions Nos. 1 (a)(iii), 3(b)(i) and (iii), 5(d) and 3(a)(iii). A glance at these answers given by him in the answer script would immediately invite the suspicion of this Court in that, these answers were not answered by the candidate in the regular course of answering the answer paper on the date he took the examination. Answer to Question No. 1(a) (iii) is found, as noticed earlier, on sheet 27 of the record. Likewise, answer to Question No. 3(b)(i) is also found at sheet 27. Answer to Question No. 3(a)(iii) is found on the next sheet, i.e., sheet 28. Answer to Question No. 5(d) is also found on sheet 28, whereas question No. 5(a) is answered at sheet 26. Likewise, question No. 3(a)(iii) is found at sheet 28, whereas the other answers to question No. 3 and sub-divisions of question No. 3 are found in the earlier sheets. So all these answers which according to the candidate had remained unvalued are found in pages 12 and 13 of the answer script. It is difficult for this Court to believe that all these answers which have come in the last two pages of the answer script remained unvalued, when the candidate submitted the answer script for valuation after taking the examination in the subject in question. It was for him to explain how these answers were written at the fag end of the answer script given to him for answering the questions. If the examiner had made any mistake by not valuing the answers submitted by the candidate, then the examiner would have easily found out when the candidate asked for re- totaling of the marks that these answers had remained unvalued. It is only after the candidate obtained the endorsement from the Pre University Board stating that there was no mistake in re- totaling the marks, the question of valuation of answers given by the candidate in regard to questions Nos.1(a)(iii), 3(b)(i)and (iii), 5(d) and 3(a)(iii) came up for consideration. This curious coincidence necessarily would lead to the inference that the last three pages in the answer script were inserted in the answer book at a subsequent stage in order to make out a case that the examiner in question had not valued the answers to these questions at the time and Board issued the endorsement stating that there was no mistake in the re- totaling of the marks. The further inference that could be drawn is that the candidate himself knew when he applied for valuation of the answers alleged to have been not valued that these answers were not there in the answer script when he took the examination on the date in question and when he made the application, he was fully aware of the fact that all these questions were interpolated either by him or by some other person with whom he was in league for obtaining the minimum qualifying marks in Sanskrit paper. Likewise, the other answer scripts also fall into the same pattern.

26. In Writ Appeal No. 1135 of 1985 which corresponds to C.C.No. 60 of 1986 the appellant is one K. Sham-kumar. He took the examination in Sanskrit and he had originally scored 19 marks. The questions that he had answered in the main answer book, as could be seen from from the facing sheet, are question No. 1 including three sub-divisions, question No. 2 including two sub-divisions, question No. 3 including three sub-divisions, Question No. 4 including two sub-divisions, Question No. 5 including 5 sub-divisions and Question No. 6 including only one subdivision. The examiner had valued all these questions inclusive of sub-divisions and had given separate marks for all these sub-divisions as could be seen from the facing sheet. On his application for re- totaling, it was found that the re- totaling was correct. re- totaling was checked on 25-6-1982. However, he made another application for valuation of the answers given for Questions Nos.3(b) and 1(b) That application bears the date 5-7-1982. On this application the subject expert who was asked to value these answers had endorsed as follows :

'1 The answer for Question 3(b) is not valued ; so 2 1/2 (Two and half marks) may be given to the correctly completed poem answer.

2. The answer for 1(b) is not valued ; so 5 1/2 (five and half marks) may be given to the mostly correct English Translation of the prose passage.

Hence the total marks come to 19 + 21/2 + 51/2 = 27 Twenty seven only.'

That was followed by the order of the Assistant Director and the Director as follows :

'As per the opinion of the Subject expert enclosed Question Nos.3(b) I(b) have not been awarded marks. They have been awarded 2 1/2 + 5 1/2 marks respectively. Thus the total raises from 19 to 27.

Id/- 8/7/82 Id/- 8/7/82'

Thus the total was raised from 19 to 27. The concerned officer was instructed to take necessary action forthwith for revising the marks. Accordingly, the candidate was issued with a fresh pass certificate under official memorandum dated 12-7-1982 on the ground that consequent on re- totaling of marks in Sanskrit paper there was a rise from 19 to 27 and the result is revised from 'fails' to 'III CLASS' after moderation. Even this official memorandum which is found at sheet 27 of the records does not bear out the correct state of affairs. It is not a re- totaling of marks in Sanskrit paper. But it is the valuation of certain answers which according to the candidate were not valued originally when the results were announced. Now what are these questions which remained unvalued will have to be ascertained by a scrutiny of the answer script. The answer script is also found in the records of the proceedings.

Answer to Question No. 1(a) is found in page 1 of the answer script. After Question No. 1(a) the candidate had answered Question No. IV and then Question No. V. The 3rd page of the answer script is almost a blank sheet. But at the end of the 3rd page, answer to Question No. 3(a) finds a place. After question No. 3(a), Question No. 2 is answered. Answer to Question No. 3(b) comes after Question No. V(2). The answer to this question is found at the bottom of page No. 2 of the answer script- At first sight, it is easy to make out that the answer to Question No. 3(b) found at the bottom of page 2 is written in an ink different from the ink used for answering Question Nos.V and V(2). If answers to Questions Nos.V and V(2) had been valued earlier and Question No. 3(b) is answered after Question Nos.V and V(2), it is difficult to believe that the examiner would have left out Question No. 3(b) unvalued. Likewise, Answer to Question No. 1(b) finds a place at page 20 of the records. That question is answered after Questions Nos. 4(1), (2), (5)(a), (b) are answered. When all the sub-divisions under Question No. 4 had been valued, namely, 4(1), (2) (5)(a)and (b) and (c), it is a matter for consideration as to why answer to Question No. 1(b) which comes at the bottom of the answer given to Question No. 4 remained unvalued and why this answer to Question No. 1(b) which according to the appellant remained unvalued comes at the very bottom of page 20 of the record. In the circumstances it was for the candidate to explain as to how these answers to Question No. 3(b) and 1(b) found - one at the bottom of sheet 20 of the record and the other bearing a different ink under Question No. 3(b) came into existence and that too at the bottom of sheet 16 of the record. It cannot be a coincidence that both these answers which according to the candidate remained unvalued appear at the bottom of the respective sheets where they are found. In the ordinary course a candidate who had known the answer to Question No. 3(b) would have answered that question immediately after answering Question No. 2 or the main Question No. 3(a). But in this case, answer to Question No. 3(a) is found, as noticed earlier, on the blank page of Sheet No. 17 at the bottom portion and Question No. 3(b) is found at sheet No. 16 at the bottom portion and that too in a different ink and not the ink used for answering Questions Nos.V and (2) in that page. Therefore, the inference that has to be drawn from these incontrovertible facts is that in both these cases when the appellants made their applications for valuation of the answers alleged to have been left unvalued by the examiner, they knew that these answers to those questions were not in the original answer script submitted by them, but they were subsequently interpolated either by themselves or by some other persons in league with them. What is more glaring in the Sanskrit answer book of the Appellant Bhimarao is that in the facing sheet of the main answer paper, he has filled up the column intended for mentioning the number of pages used in the main answer book as 'II'. He has also filled up the column for total number of pages used as 11. However, the actual number of pages in the answer script is more than 11. The unvalued answers are found at pages 12 and 13 of the answer book. The inference that is obvious is that these pages came into existence either before his application for valuation of the answers, which according to him were unvalued, or after making such an application so that the persons involved in this case were in 8 position to allow additional writing in the answer book in order to make out a case that some answers had remained unvalued and had to be valued again for the purpose of evaluating the answer script of the candidate.

27. We will take one more case of a subject other than Sanskrit in C.C.No. 55 of 1986 which corresponds to Writ Appeal No. 1 198 of 1985. The candidate has taken the examination in Mathematics. He has answered 12 questions on the whole, as could be seen from the facing sheet to the main answer book. In the first question, he has answered 4 sub-divisions, in the second 3 sub-divisions, in the third 3 sub-divisions, the 4th he has not answered at all. In the fifth he has answered one sub-division, sixth 1 sub-division, seventh 2 sub-divisions, eighth 4 subdivisions, ninth 4 sub-divisions tenth 3 sub-divisions, eleventh 4 sub-divisions and twelfth 4 sub-divisions. The total marks scored by him by answering all these questions including the sub-divisions are 16. The number of pages used by him are 23 inclusive of additional pages. According to the candidate, the answers to Questions Nos. 11(i), 11(ii). 12(a)(i), 12(a)(ii), 12(a)(iii), 3(b), 9(a)(iii), 9(a)(ii), 11(iv), 6(a), 8(b)(i), 8(b)(ii), 9(a)(ii) and 9(a)(i) were not valued at all. It is incredible that a candidate who had scored originally 16 marks after answering 12 questions including the sub-division could come out with a plea that his answers to as many as 14 questions remained unvalued. Even then it is a matter for scrutiny for this Court to satisfy itself whether any examiner worth the name would have failed to value as many as 14 answers given by the candidate in a subject like mathematics. The candidate's answer script is also found in the records. The alleged unvalued answers according to him are found in sheets 27, 28, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 37. His answer to Question No. 11(i) which, according to him, was not valued, is found at the very bottom of Sheet No. 27. Significantly, the answer to Question No. 2(a) which is just above this answer has been valued and he was given 1 mark. Likewise, on Sheet No. 28, the answer to Question No. 11(i) is continued at the very top of the page and that comes in just before the answer to Question No. 3(a). Then answer to Question No. 12(a) which according to him was not valued comes at the first page of Sheet No. 28 after Question No. 3(a). So the answer to Question No. 11(i) and the answer to Question No. 12(a) are found squeezed before and after the answer to Question No. 3(a). When that is so, factually it is difficult to appreciate how any examiner would fail to notice the answers given to Questions Nos. 11(i) and 12(a) if at all they had existed in the form in which they exist now in the answer script when the very same examiner had valued Question No. 3(a) and given 2 marks for that question. Likewise, the other answers given by him are also found in the place at which they should not have been, if they had been answered in the normal course. But they have been squeezed in between the other answers by taking advantage of the blank space available in the answer script. To take one more glaring example of interpolation, the answer to Question No. 9(iii) should be examined. This answer is inserted at the bottom of the first page of Sheet 32. There is hardly any space for writing two sentences in double space and that answer is given as against Question No. 9(a)(iii). This answer to Question No. 9(a)(iii) has come after the answer to Question No. 11(iv). It is not possible to appreciate as to why the candidate should answer Question No. 9(iii) after answering Question Nos.11(i) to (iv). Likewise, it is not understood how the candidate could answer Question No. 3(b) which had come at the blank space available at the top of Sheet 32 after answering Question No. 10(a) to (c). Illustrations of this type could be multiplied if we go into the other questions said to have been not valued by the examiner and they are found in Sheet 36. So even a cursory glance at the answer script without going into the identification of the handwriting of the candidate or the ink used by the candidate to answer those questions would show that the candidate, when he made the application for valuation of the answers which were allegedly left unvalued by the examiner, knew, as a matter of fact, that those answers did not exist and the candidate did not answer the questions which according to him he had answered when he sought for valuation of those answers. The answers came into existence after the candidate's request for re- totaling met with no favourable reply. These records are part of the proceedings before the Board. We have gone through the other answer books page by page with reference to the answers which according to the other appellants had not been valued and we are satisfied that those answers were not in the answer scripts when those appellants took the examinations and those answers came into existence subsequently after the candidate's request for re- totaling of the marks did not meet with any favourable reply. Instead of giving the details of those interpolated answers given by the other appellants with reference to page numbers we have made a general observation and these observations, in our view, are fully supported by the records of the proceedings of the Board.

28. It is under these circumstances, the learned Judge in Paras 11 and 12 of the Judgment observed as follows :

'I consider it unnecessary to go into the said allegation as I was told that criminal prosecutions are being launched in respect of the above allegations.

Whatever that may be, the following facts are not and could not be disputed -

1. The marks secured by each of the petitioners according to the valuation made by the valuer in the subject concerned was as stated at column 5 of the statement.

2. There was only provision for re- totaling and each of the petitioners applied for re- totaling.

3. Even after re- totaling the total marks given by the valuer and entered on the prescribed proforma being the cover page of the answer script was found to be correct.

4. Even though there was prohibition for revaluation under the rules, after finding that there was no change after re- totaling representation was made by or on behalf of each of the petitioners to give marks to certain answers stating that they had not been valued by the valuer.

5. Straight-away additional marks were given by the then Director in a separate sheet taking the opinion of a subject expert without referring the script to the valuer.

6. No marks have been given on the answer script to those answers alleged to have been not valued by the valuer. The marks awarded on the answer scripts remain the same and on a re- totaling of the marks, even now the position remains the same.'

29. It was strenuously contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the learned Judge was wrong in taking the view that there was a prohibition for valuation of the answers under the Rules. In our view it is unnecessary for us to give any finding on that question since we are satisfied that even assuming that the candidate had a right to get the answers valued subsequently on the ground that they remained unvalued by the examiner at the earlier stage, those answers did not exist in the answer scripts when they took the examinations in the subjects in question and on the date they were valued by the examiner, those answers did not exist in the answer script and they came into existence subsequently. Consequently, it is certainly possible for this Court to draw the inference that when all the appellants made their respective applications for valuation of the answers alleged to have been not valued they were fully aware of the fact that they had not written those answers in the manner they are found in their answer scripts and therefore their applications were totally lacking in bona fides and they were made only with a view to mislead the Board and to lead them to value the papers once again with a view to get more marks and obtain passing marks which they did not and could not get earlier on the basis of the original answers given by them. The fact that as many as 116 cases of this type had surfaced and had attracted the attention of not only the Government but the other authorities concerned and the fact that the matter was also entrusted to the COD for investigation would only go to show that there was a concerted plan on the part of a number of candidates in collusion with certain officials who were in custody of the answer scripts in question and they were able to achieve their object of getting a pass mark in the subjects in which they had failed earlier. In those circumstances, these are not the matters in which this Court should exercise the discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution, notwithstanding the fact the enquiry held by the authorities concerned in a matter like this did not fully satisfy the requirements of the principles of natural justice and notwithstanding the fact that a decision rendered in violation of the principles of natural justice is void and non-est.

30. The jurisdiction conferred on this Court is a discretionary jurisdiction and this Court must be satisfied that the parties have approached this Court with clean hands. Our conclusions is also buttressed by the further fact that the appellants did not seek to avail themselves of the opportunity given to them to file any additional statement after examining the answer scripts by themselves. Of course their defence was whatever they may say would prejudice their case in the Criminal Court and would be violative of their fundamental right under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. We do not think on the facts and circumstances of the case that by making any additional statement in this Court after looking into the records of the proceedings for the purpose of this case they would have exposed themselves to the jeopardy protected under Article 20(3). What all Article 20(3) guarantees is that no person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness as against himself. If the appellants want any relief from this Court, then they have to satisfy the Court that the findings of the Enquiry Committee are not borne out by any material on record. Their plea that if the prosecution pending against them is withdrawn they would make their statement before this Court does not appear to be a bona fide plea and such a contention deserves no serious consideration by this Court. For the purpose of this case they could have made a statement and this Court also could have protected their rights and interest in the criminal case by making suitable observation to the effect that anything done or said in this Court should not be held against them in the criminal proceedings. This assurance was given to them in the course of the arguments. Why the appellants did not avail themselves of the opportunity in this Court, in our view, is because of the fact that the various interpolations, substitutions and corrections made in the answer scripts have left their tell-tale marks in those scripts and no plausible defence was available to the appellants to get over those tell-tale marks. They only wanted to make the examiner the scope goat for their failures in the respective subjects. In our view, by not taking advantage of the opportunity given by us, they have done a great disservice to themselves and have to reap the consequences of the same.

31. Under these circumstances, it is not necessary for this Court to go into various contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the appellants which appeared very substantial, before we had the opportunity of looking into the answer scripts since these answers scripts were in the criminal Court at the time the arguments commenced and we had to summon the records from time to time as the hearing progressed.

32. The jurisdiction of this Court to exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution is well settled and if at all a reference is necessary the decision of the Supreme Court in SANGRAM SINGH v. ELECTION TRIBUNAL, KOTAH AND ANR. : [1955]2SCR1 would meet the requirement of this case. The Supreme Court observed :

'That, however, is not to say that the jurisdiction will be exercised whenever there is an error of law. The High Courts do not and should not act as Courts of appeal under Article 226. Their powers are purely discretionary and though no limits can be placed upon that discretion it must be exercised along recognised lines and not arbitrarily, and one of the limitations imposed by the Courts on themselves is that they will not exercise jurisdiction in this class of case unless substantial injustice has ensued, or is likely to ensue. They will not allow themselves to be turned into Courts of appeal or revision to set right mere errors of law which do not occasion injustice in a broad and general sense, for though no legislature can impose limitation on these constitutional powers it is a sound exercise of discretion to bear in mind the policy of the legislature to have disputes about these special rights decided as speedily as may be. Therefore, Writ Petitions should not be lightly entertained in this class of case.'

These observations were made with reference to the powers of the High Court to interfere in an election dispute arising under the relevant provisions of the Representation of the People Act. In bur view, this ruling of the Supreme Court is applicable with all force to the facts of this case and this principle has been followed by this Court in a number of cases touching academic and University Education and institutions of higher learning, Here we are dealing with the cases arising out of certain acts of malfeasance involving the students who had taken the examinations in the Pre University course. The standard of higher education necessarily depends upon the standards maintained by the Universities. In a similar case arising from Maharashtra State, the Supreme Court in MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OF SECONDARY AND HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION AND ANR. v. PARITOSH BHUPESH KURMAR SHETH ETC. : [1985]1SCR29 observed as follows :

'Far from advancing public interest and fair play to the other candidates in general, any such interpretation of the legal position would be wholly defensive of the same. As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the Working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded. It is equally important that the Court should also, as far as possible avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or Bye-law which would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable in practice. It is unfortunate that this principle has not been adequately kept in mind by the High Court while deciding the instant case.'

That was a case where certain powers conferred on the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards Regulations were struck down by the High Court on the ground that they were violative of the principles of natural justice. That is not a case where any fraud was committed. But the contention that the candidate was not given sufficient opportunity to Put forth his case against the allegations of tampering of the marks was rejected by the Supreme Court. In our view, those observations are applicable to the facts of this cases. We are satisfied that the appellants cannot take advantage of their own fraud and raise various questions of law however substantial they may be by by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, as observed by the Supreme Court the recent decision inm SHIV SHANKAR DAL MILLS ETC. v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. : [1980]1SCR1170 .

'Article 226 grants an extraordinary remedy which is essentially discretionary/although founded on legal injury. It is perfectly open for the Court, exercising this flexible power, to pass such order such as public interest dictates and equity projects.

Courts of equity may, and frequently do go much further both to give and withhold relief in furtherance of the public interest than they are accustomed to go where only private interests are involved. Accordingly, the granting or withholding of relief may properly be dependent upon considerations as of public interest.......'

Keeping in mind these guidelines, we are of the view that in the interest of public who are greatly interested in maintaining a high standard of education in our Universities, these are not fit matters for our interference. The purity in the conduct of examinations and the higher standards to be maintained by the Universities in conferring degrees on candidates are all matters which evoke the interest of the general public and keeping this in view we are satisfied that the appellants should not be permitted to raise the various constitutional questions and legal issues which the learned Counsel for the appellants had put painstakingly before this Court. In D. RAMANUJAM v. THE DEAN, BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND ANR. ILR (Karnataka) 1973 955 the Division Bench of this Court has observed as follows:

'The contention of the petitioner that the University has not cancelled or withdrawn the marks card given to him and therefore the college authorities are bound to act upon it, cannot be accepted. It is not necessary to hold as to who is responsible for the fraud. The fact remains that the petitioners are the beneficiaries of the fraud and the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 20(3) of the Constitution cannot be invoked for the benefit of such persons.'

In this view of the matter, we consider it unnecessary to consider all other contentions urged by the appellants.

33. For these reasons these appeals fail and they are dismissed. However, any observation made or any finding recorded by us against the appellants after scrutiny of the answer scripts, shall not be used by any Court or authority in any of the criminal proceedings now pending or proposed against the appellants.

No Costs.