Skip to content


Sunil Kumar JaIn Vs. the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Misc. Writ No. 358/1972
Judge
Reported inAIR1973All27
AppellantSunil Kumar Jain
RespondentThe Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad and ors.
Appellant AdvocateK.C. Saxena, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateStanding Counsel
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
.....part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. therefore, the term such board will have to mean a divisional board of or the level of divisional board or the state board. the divisional..........was as to how he had solved the equation 53.5 x 46/1000 and got the result 2.461 without doing rough calculation. the petitioner's explanation was that he was in the habit of doing the rough calculation work on his palm or on the desk. this explanation was not accepted by the examinations committee and a report was made to the board that the petitioner was guilty of using unfair means at the examination. on this report the board cancelled the examination. aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.2. in the petition it has been asserted that the rough calculation work has been done on the palm or on the desk. in the counter-affidavit it has been stated that this explanation was not accepted as it was against the instructions printed on the back of the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Hari Swarup, J.

1. The petitioner Sunil Kumar Jain had appeared at the Intermediate Examination of 1971 conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. (hereinafter called the Board). His result was withheld. Subsequently an enquiry committee was set up and the petitioner was served with a questionnaire. One of the questions was as to how he had solved the equation 53.5 x 46/1000 and got the result 2.461 without doing rough calculation. The petitioner's explanation was that he was in the habit of doing the rough calculation work on his palm or on the desk. This explanation was not accepted by the examinations committee and a report was made to the Board that the petitioner was guilty of using unfair means at the examination. On this report the Board cancelled the examination. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

2. In the petition it has been asserted that the rough calculation work has been done on the palm or on the desk. In the counter-affidavit it has been stated that this explanation was not accepted as it was against the instructions printed on the back of the admission card and on the answer book. Learned Standing Counsel has not been able to point out any instruction either on the admission card or on the answer book which prohibits the use of the palm or the desk for rough calculation work. Hence the very foundation for the inference drawn by the committee is missing. Even if there were such instructions and the petitioner had violated them, he could be punished only for violation of the same if there were a provision for such punishment. 'Using of unfair means' has a nexus with the employment of prohibited material and the taking help of an outside agency. If the candidate had, applying his own mind, made calculations on the desk or on the palm he; cannot be said to have used unfair means.

3. Even if the explanation of the petitioner is not accepted as correct, there was no material before the examinations committee to come to the conclusion that the candidate had used unfair means. The equation is a very simple one and required just two steps of multiplication to arrive at the result. It is not denied that the petitioner had obtained a First Class in the High School with distinction in Mathematics. For such a student this simple equation was not at all difficult to solve. The inference drawn by the examinations committee is thus unwarranted and is not based on any material on record. The Board had therefore no authority to withhold the result of the petitioner.

4. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. The order of the Board cancelling the petitioner's examination is quashed. Let a writ in the nature of Mandamus be issued to the Board directing it to declare the result of the petitioner's examination of 1971. The petitioner will be entitled to his costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //