Rajendra Kumar Vs. Regional Office, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Bareilly and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
constitution - allegation of practice of unfair means of writing exam - intermediate examination - no rough work on answer paper - result was cancelled on such grounds - board acted without jurisdiction - harassment to petitioner - grounds for cancellation not valid - directed to declare the results within one month of reception of order by authorities. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any.....order1. the petitioner appeared in the intermediate examination of 1987 conducted by the board of high school and intermediate education, regional office, bareilly. he was allotted roll no. 137715. he appeared in the said examination. he was not caught using unfair means, but his result has been cancelled on the ground of suspicion, namely, that since he did not do any rough work, therefore, the result has been cancelled. the mere fact that a candidates does not do rough work, is no ground for cancelling his result. it is usual that a candidate learns the answer by heart and then relates the same in the examination. no rule nor any other provision has been shown to us that in every case rough work must be done. the board has acted wholly without jurisdiction in cancelling the examination.....

Judgment:
ORDER

1. The petitioner appeared in the Intermediate Examination of 1987 conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Regional Office, Bareilly. He was allotted Roll No. 137715. He appeared in the said examination. He was not caught using unfair means, but his result has been cancelled on the ground of suspicion, namely, that since he did not do any rough work, therefore, the result has been cancelled. The mere fact that a candidates does not do rough work, is no ground for cancelling his result. It is usual that a candidate learns the answer by heart and then relates the same in the examination. No rule nor any other provision has been shown to us that in every case rough work must be done. The Board has acted wholly without jurisdiction in cancelling the examination of the petitioner merely on the ground that no rough work has been done. It may be observed that this type of action by the Board has resulted in lot of harassment not only to this petitioner but to other petitioners who have approached this Court. We hope and trust that the Board shall take care in future that the result of the candidates should not be cancelled merely on the ground that the rough work has not been done.

2. In view of the above, the petition isallowed, we quash the order passed by theBoard cancelling the petitioner's Intermediateexamination held in the year 1987. We furtherdirect that his result shall be declared within amonth from the date a certified copy of thisorder produced before the/Secretary, U.P.Board of High School and Intermediate Education Office Bareilly.

3. A certified copy of this order, may be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges within three days.

4. Petition allowed.