JUDGMENT
A. Pasayat, J.
1. Balia Women’s College (hereinafter referred to as ‘petitioner’), has prayed . for a direction to the Controller of Examinations Council of Higher SecondaryEducation! Orissa, Bhubaneswar (-in short, ‘Council’) to publish results of its students who had appeared at the Annual Higher Secondary Education, 1996 and to, further ., declare the. . candidates to have passed in the said examination.
2. Grievance of petitioner in a nutshell is as follows :
Petitioner institution was established during the year, 1991-92. Initially its students were appearing , at another centre as candidates Since 1994, its students were appearing as candidates at the College which was fixed as a centre. For the examination in question, one hundred seventy one candidates appeared as candidates of petitioner-institution. The flying squad appointed by the Council made a surprise visit on 4-3-1996 while second sitting of M. I. L. paper in respect of +2 (Articles) Examination was going on. The members of the flying squad arrived at the College at 3-50 p. m. and remained at the centre till 4-20 p. m. Chough examination, was being conducted in a peaceful manner, and only four cases relating to adoption of malpractice were detected, strangely though the flying squad recommended cancellation of results of all the candidates, and also suggested that no further examination should be held by the Council by having its. examination centre at the College. Only a few individual cases were detected and in the absence of any material to substantiate allegation of mass-mafpractice, cancellation as directed is uncalled for. Before cancellation no opportunity was granted to the candidates to present their case impugned notification of the Council is dated 9th July, July 1996 and is annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ application, by which it was notified that results in respect of examination held on different dates on various subjects in ‘respect of one hundred forty eight Institutions were to be cancelled by taking into account resolution No. 1665 dated 5-7-1996 and 8-7-1996 of the Examination Committed It was notified that benefit of hard case rule was not to be extended to those students whose results were cancelled and re-examination of those papers were not to be held. Action of the Council in making impugned notification is under challenge so far as petitioner-institution is concerned.
3. Mr. S.C. Das, learned counsel for the Council submitted that general condition in the centre was disturbing and examination was not being conducted as per rules of the Council, and there was disturbance inside the hall. Malpractice was adopted inside the hall. Though four cases of malpractice were detected and reported by the flying squad, it was noticed that majority of students were involved in malpractice, invigilators were abettors to the malpractice and the Centre Superintendent could not prevent the same. The deficiencies noted by the flying squad are as follows :
(i) General condition around ‘ the examination centre was disturbing and general condition inside the examination hall was also disturbing.
(ii) Examination was not conducted as per C. H. S. E. Rules and there was disturbance inside the hall.
(iii) Malpractice was adopted inside the hall and four cases of malpractice were detected and reported by the flying squad.
(iv) Majority of students were involved in malpractice, invigilators were abettors to the malpractice and the Centre Superintendent could not prevent the same.
Further the flying squad recommended that as the students were involved in the malpractice, rooms are very small and the employees give information regarding arrival of the flying squad and favour malpractice there should not be a centre in addition to cancellation of the sitting. Considering the report of the flying squad and materials brought on record, direction was given by the impugned notification so far as petitioner institution is concerned, which is in order. 4. According to Section 21 of the Orissa Higher Secondary Education Act, 1982 (in short, ‘the Act’), the Council shall constitute different committees, and one such committee constituted is the Examination Committee. Regulations are framed .under Section 30 of the Act which inter alia deals with powers and duties of, the Committees specified, in Section 21. Regulation 77, of the Orissa Higher Secondary Education Regulations, 1982 (in short, ‘the “Regulations’ ) deals with powers of The Examination Committee. Claused, (vii) thereof provides that the Examination Committee will consider, the cases of malpractice and award of, punishment to the candidates concerned.
5. Mass copying has not been defined in the Act or the Regulations. It has therefore, to be understood in its common parlance. What could be considered mass ‘copying cannot be laid down with mathematical precision. It has to vary and has to be decided on facts and circumstances of each case. Generally , it would be a case of copying by a vast majority or on a massive scale or in such large proportion that it was not possible to check it. It is unwritten rule of any examination, that it must be conducted fairly which would include the concept that the examinees must take the examination” fairly Adoption of unfair practice either individually or as mass is antithesis of fairness of – the examination, and even in the absence of any specific rule for the purpose, the examining body has the power not to accept the result of the examination, and take action either against an Individual or against all the examinees as a whole in case of a mass involvement in unfair means. The rule is implicit in all examinations and hence the Council or the Committee is within its right to cancel the examination if such a rule is violated. In a case of mass malpractice, where- large . number of candidates resort to malpractice, it is not a case, of particular individual who is being charged With adoption of unfair means but of the conduct of all the examinees or. at least a vast majority, of them at, a particular centre. It is not a question of charging any one individual with unfair means but to condemn the examination as ineffective for the purpose it was held. The Council is not required to grant any opportunity to all the candidates to present their case. The Councildoes not charge any one with unfair means so that he could claim to difend himself.The examination itself was vitiated by adoption of unfair means at a mass scale. The Examination Committee is responsible for fair conduct of examination. The essence of examination is that the worth of every candidate, appearing therein without any assistance from outside source is appraised. If at a particular centre the whole body of students receive assistance and means to secure success, it is obvious that the Council cannot remain as a silent spectator. It cannot hold a detailed quasi-judicial inquiry with a right to its alumni to plea and lead’ evidence etc. before the result withheld or the examinations cancelled. if there is sufficient material on which it can be demona treated that the Council was right in its conclusion that the examination ought to be cancelled then academic standards require that the Council’s appreciation of the problem must be respected. It would not: be for the Court to inquirer in such matters.The Court cannot ask. the Council to grant opportunity to all the Candidate or their representatives with a view to: ascertain whether they had received assistance from, any outside source.That would encourage indiscipline. The position was succinctiy stated by the Apex Court in-The Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha and Ors., AIR 1970 SC 1269.
6. If a circumstance is created in which holding of fair and proper examination is ruled out the deserves to be viewed as” seriously as mass copying as that concept is ordinarily understood because in that situation also there is no proper assesssment of then merit of the examinee, which is the sole purpose of Examination The need to maintain high educational standard and the manning of offices and professions by really qualified people which larger public interest demands, should be good ground to regard those cases where fair and proper examination is not possible as akin to mass copying, which is abhorred because it dose not allow to judge merit property Because of this, the former should be accepted accroding to us to come within the enlarged meaning of “mass copying which is required to be given purposeful interpretation, keeping in view the evit is sought to remedy. If this purpose of stopping mass copying is kept in mind a situation where holding of fair and proper examination is not possible, should be allowed to be in the womb of mass copying it must be treated as conceptually very close to mass copying-the dividing line between two being very thin, so much so that almost merge in the other.
7 The detection of only few examinees on test checking also is not very material as even if,” after having come to know that flying squad had come, certain students either, due to misplaced. bravery or sheer foolishness retained the material from which they were copying then could, not after the general tenor reflected in conduct of others.If all this is examined cumulatively then it leaves hardly” any room for doubt that the conduct of examination, in general was not fair and even if large number of students were not using unfair means the atmosphere was such that holding of fair, and proper Examination stood ruled out. The falling standards of education are resultant of Unfair means being adopted at the examinations. The real worth of student is never tested in the process. He Who deserves five marks gets eighty five marks because, of assistance received from outside source and unfair means adopted. The degree or diploma or certificate is not received In its true sense and is tainted with the vice of adopting unfair means
The country can ill-afford to have a posterity of ignorance. The malady has spread so wide and so deep that it deserves consideration from educationists, guardians and the Government. Where the future of posterity is involved, procrastination is unwise and to lie low is insensible. Let not the elders contribute to the deterioration of norms by their callousness.
8. We find nothing illicit in the impugned notification to warrant our interference. The writ application fails and is dismissed. No Cost.
S.C. Datta, J.
9. I agree.