JUDGMENT
Ranjan Gogoi, J.
1. The writ petitioner, a young student, after admitting that he had adopted unfair means in the Higher Secondary (Science) Examination held in March 2001 by the Assam Higher Secondary Education Council (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Council’), seeks to challenge the actions of the Council in debarring him from sitting in the said examination for the subsequent year due to commence with effect from 21.2.2002. The cancellation of the examination in which the writ petitioner was found to resorting to unfair means being a fait accompli is naturally not under challenge in the present proceeding.
2. The brief facts of the case may be noticed as hereunder. The petitioner, Reetwam Pathak, appeared in the Higher Secondary Examination of the year 2001 in the Science stream conducted by the Council under Roll 159 No. D-468 in the J. B. Collage Centre at Jorhat. On 3.3.2001, the petitioner was caught red-handed while copying in the Physics papers held on the said date. The petitioner was immediately expelled from the examination hall and was debarred from appearing in the other papers. Such actions were taken on the basis of a written confession of the guilt by the writ petitioner. Thereafter, a notice dated 27.8.2001 by the Controller of Examinations of the Council was issued and served on the petitioner informing him that the Council was contemplating to take further punitive action against him and, therefore, he was required to submit a written explanation showing cause as to why such punitive action should not be taken against him.
At this stage, the instant writ proceeding was instituted before this Court praying for a writ of Mandamus directing the Council to allow the writ petitioner to appear in the Higher Secondary Examination to be held in the year 2002. Interim orders permitting the registration of the writ petitioner as a casual candidate was also sought. On the basis of the averments made in the writ application to the effect that the question of punitive action as contemplated in the notice dated 27.8/2001 had not been finalised, this Court by order dated 9.11.2001 while issuing Notice of Motion directed the concerned authority of the Council to permit the petitioner to get himself registered as a casual candidate. This Court, however, made it clear that such registration would be subject to further orders in the case. A contempt application registered as Contempt Case No. 532/2001 was filed before this Court on 19.12.2001 alleging disobedience of the interim order dated 9.11.2001. On 3.1.2002, Misc. Case No. 32/ 2002 was filed by the Council seeking vacation of the interim order dated 9.11.2001. In the aforesaid Misc. Case filed by the Council, it was pointed out that the punitive action as contemplated by the notice dated 27.8.2001 had been completed and by order dated 10.10.2001, the Council had resolved to debar the writ petitioner from sitting in the examination for the year 2002 in addition to cancellation of his examination of the year 2001. This Court by order dated 17.1.2002 directed the writ petitioner to submit an appeal to the Council for grant of permission to take the Higher Secondary Examination for the year 2002. The Council was also directed by the said order to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in the matter. As it now appears from the various affidavits and additional affidavits filed by the parties this Court, pursuant to the order dated 17.1.2002 passed by this Court, the matter was re-considered by the Council and by order dated 7.2.2002, the Council reiterated its earlier decision in the matter. The legality and validity of the aforesaid actions and orders which have the effect of debarring the writ petitioner from sitting in the Higher Secondary Examination scheduled to commence from 21.2.2002 is the subject matter of consideration in the present proceeding.
3. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has primarily based the challenge made in the instant proceeding on the validity of the Regulations framed by the Council in this regard. A copy of the said Regulations namely, the Regulations for Conduct of Higher Secondary Examination, 1985 has been placed before this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said Regulations have been framed under Section 24(2) (d) and (c) of the Assam Higher Secondary Education Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). It is argued by the learned counsel that under Section 24(2) of the Act, the power to frame Regulations laying down disciplinary measurer for malpractices in examination is covered in Clause (h). The Regulations in force not having been framed in exercise of powers conferred by the aforesaid Clause (h) of Section 24(2) of the Act, the impugned actions, admittedly initiated on the basis of power conferred by the said Regulations particularly Regulation 36B are wholly unauthorised. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has further argued that in the affidavit filed by the Council, it has also been stated that the penalty imposed on the petitioner is on the basis of the criteria laid down for inflicting punishment adopted by the Council by resolution dated 28.11.2000. The said resolution, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is an amplification of Regulation 36B(iii). Under the proviso to Section 24 of the Act, all regulations, alterations and revocations thereof have been made subject to the approval of the State Government and are required to be published in the Official Gazette. The criteria for punishment adopted by the Council could not have been applied in the instant case to penalise the petitioner inasmuch as the said criteria has not been published in the Official Gazette. It is further argued by learned counsel that as the statute has prescribed a particular mode for the framing of regulations imposing punishment for commission of malpractice in examination. Such mode must necessarily be followed which have not been done in the instant case. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has additionally argued that in the criteria adopted by the Council, 5 different punishments have been adopted for being awarded to candidates who have been found to have been adopting unfair means in an examination. According to the learned counsel, the classification made in the aforesaid criteria has no reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved by such classification and, therefore, the aforesaid criteria adopted by the Council is open to interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution. In support of his contentions Mr. Choudhury relies on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. New Tobacco Co. and Ors., reported in (1998) 8 SCC 250 as also in the case of Ramchandra Keshav Adka and Ors. v. Govind Joti Chavare, reported in (1975) 1 SCC 559.
4. Mr. K.H. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the Council does not dispute the fact that the criteria of punishment adopted by the Council on which basis action against the writ petitioner had been taken, had not been published in the Official Gazette. Mr. Choudhury, however, contends that the aforesaid criteria cannot be construed to be a part of the Regulations requiring publication in the official Gazette. Mr. Choudhury by referring to the provisions of Section 13 (xxiv) of the Act contends that the aforesaid criteria have been laid down in exercise of powers under the said provisions of the Act namely, Section 13 (xxiv) of the Act. On that basis, it is argued that the criteria adopted by the Council can still validly form the basis of the action impugned in the present case. In support of the aforesaid, proposition, Mr. Choudhury relies on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of V. Balasubramaniam and Ors. v. Tamil Nadu Housing Board and Ors., reported in (1987) 4 SCC 738.
It is pointed out by Mr. Choudhury that by order dated 10.10.2001, as many as 39 cases of malpractice in the Higher Secondary Examination of 2001 have been dealt with by the Council and the case of the petitioner along with 34 other similarly situated candidates who had smuggled in prohibited study materials inside the examination hall from which they were found to be copying, have been uniformly dealt with by the Council. In all such cases in addition to the penalty of cancellation of examination of the current year, all such candidates including the writ petitioner have been debarred from taking the examination of the subsequent year also namely, the examination of the year 2002. The actions of the authority is, therefore, contended to be fair, uniform and consistent. Mr. Choudhury has also submitted that it is settled law that the writ Court ought to be slow in interfering with the decision of academic bodies in disciplinary matters and unless there is a glaring misuse of power or wrong application of principles, the writ Court would not interfere. In support, Mr. Choudhury relies ‘on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Chairman, J & K State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahroed Malik and Ors., reported in (2000) 3 SCC 59.
5. I have considered the rival submissions advanced. The first argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the Regulations framed by the Council are admittedly under Clauses (c) and (d) of Section 24 (2) of the Act, the provisions of Regulation 36 of the aforesaid Regulations which pertains to the disciplinary measures for commission of malpractices in examination are not authorised. The said argument hardly calls for any elaborate consideration inasmuch as the wrong recital of the provisions of the statute under which the Regulations have been framed or even an omission to recite the correct provision will not invalidate the exercise, i.e., the making of the Regulations, The second argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner namely, that the resolution adopting the criteria of punishment is in effect an amplification or amendment of the Regulations and would, therefore, require publication in the Official Gazette, has the potential of raising an academic issue which the Court is not inclined to go into. Even if the aforesaid criteria of punishment cannot be enforced as a part of the Regulations in force, the said criteria can still form the basis of valid punitive action against the candidates adopting unfair means in an examination as such criteria would partake the character of laid down norms and principles. The power to lay down such norms is clearly traceable to the provisions of Section 13(xxiv) of the Act, a power which may have some resemblance to those prescribed in Article 162 of the Constitution. This is precisely what the Apex Court had laid down in the case of V. Balasubramaniam (supra). This Court, therefor, has now to address itself to the validity of the application of the criteria in the facts of the present case.
6. It would appear from the record of the present case that the cases of the petitioner and other similarly situated candidates were duly considered by the Unfair Means Scrutiny Committee of the Council and on the basis of the recommendation of the said Committee, penalty was imposed on the petitioner by the Notification dated 10.10.2001. This Court has noticed that the aforesaid Scrutiny Committee is comprised of experts in the academic world. On an appeal made by the writ petitioner pursuant to the order of this Court, the matter was again re-considered by the council as a whole whereafter the order dated 7.2.2002 reiterating the earlier decision was passed. The decision, as to how serious an effect on academic life and environment has been caused by the wrongful actions of the writ petitioner has been considered and, re-considered by persons well versed in such matters. Such views are not to be lightly interfered with by the writ Court which neither has the know-how nor the expertise to sit in judgment over the views of the experts. This Court also notices that by order dated 10.10.2001, the cases of the candidates against in Sl. Nos. 3 to 36 (which includes the petitioner) who were found to have indulged in similar malpractice in the examination held in the year 2001 were uniformly dealt with and all of them have been debarred from appearing in the examination of the subsequent year also. The principles on which the criteria of punishment have been laid down has been uniformly applied and the writ petitioner has not been discriminated against. Consequently, I am unable to hold that the actions of the Council are in any way unfair or unjust so as to require any interference. The reasonableness of the punishment in the light of the acts attributed to the writ petitioner aid admitted by him must be left to the judgment of academic experts who have deliberated over the matter and thought it fit to impose the punishment in question in the interest of academic discipline.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in this writ petition and, therefore, the same stands dismissed. However, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.