{"id":147539,"date":"1962-08-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1962-08-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-board-of-high-school-vs-bagleshwar-prasad-others-on-27-august-1962"},"modified":"2016-11-14T04:59:27","modified_gmt":"2016-11-13T23:29:27","slug":"the-board-of-high-school-vs-bagleshwar-prasad-others-on-27-august-1962","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-board-of-high-school-vs-bagleshwar-prasad-others-on-27-august-1962","title":{"rendered":"The Board Of High School &amp; &#8230; vs Bagleshwar Prasad &amp; Others on 27 August, 1962"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Board Of High School &amp; &#8230; vs Bagleshwar Prasad &amp; Others on 27 August, 1962<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR  875, \t\t  1963 SCR  (3) 767<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: P Gajendragadkar<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nTHE BOARD OF HIGH SCHOOL &amp; INTER-MEDIATE EDUCATION U. P.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBAGLESHWAR PRASAD &amp; OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n27\/08\/1962\n\nBENCH:\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nBENCH:\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nGUPTA, K.C. DAS\nDAYAL, RAGHUBAR\n\nCITATION:\n 1966 AIR  875\t\t  1963 SCR  (3) 767\n CITATOR INFO :\n E\t    1969 SC 198\t (14)\n\n\nACT:\nDomestic   Tribunal-Educational\t  body-Disciplinary   action\n-Interference by High Court-Constitution of India, Art.226.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe appellant Board cancelled the declaration of the  result\nof the respondent in the High School Certificate Examination\nheld  in  1960 accepting the findings  of  the\tsubcommittee\nappointed by it to enquire into the charges made against the\nrespondent and another candidate of having used unfair means\nin answering the English, Mathematics and Hindi papers.\t The\ncharges were based upon the fact that in the Hindi 3rd paper\nset  at\t the  said examination, the  respondent\t gave  wrong\nanswers\t to  Question No. 4 in precisely the  same  form  in\nwhich the answers had been given by the candidate whose Roll\nnumber\twas  consecutive with that of the  respondent.\t The\nHigh  Court interpreting the charge as confined to that\t the\nrespondent  had\t copied either from the answer book  of\t the\ncandidate  bearing  the consecutive Roll Number\t or  from  a\ncommon\tsource\theld  that  the\t findings  of  the   enquiry\ncommittee  were\t based\ton  no\tevidence  and  quashed\t the\ncancellation of the result.On appeal by special leave.\nHeld, that in the circumstances of the case, the identity of\nthe  wrong answers given by the respondent with that of\t the\nother candidate bearing the consecutive Roll Number rendered\nthe  charge of the respondent having employed  unfair  means\nhighly\tprobable  and  that  the  findings  of\tthe  enquiry\ncommittee  based upon such probabilities and  circumstantial\nevidence could not be said to be based on no evidence as  in\nsuch   matters\tdirect\tevidence  quite\t often\t cannot\t  be\navailable.\nHeld,  further,\t that in dealing with cases  like  those  of\neducational institutions dealing with matters of  discipline\nlike  employing\t unfair\t means, the  problem  faced  by\t the\neducational institutions should be appreciated by the  'High\nCourt  and so long as the enquiry held is fair\tand  affords\nthe  candidate an opportunity to defend himself, the  matter\nshould\n768\nnot  be examined with the same strictness as  applicable  to\ncriminal trials in the ordinary courts of law.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 328 of 1962.<br \/>\n Appeal\t by special leave from the judgment and order  dated<br \/>\nSeptember  4,  1961, of the Allahabad High  Court  in  Civil<br \/>\nMisc. writ No. 3469 of 1960.\n<\/p>\n<p>K.   L. Misra, Advocate-General for the State of U.    P.,<br \/>\nC.  B.\tAgarwala,  K.  S. Hajela and  C.  P.  Lal,  for\t the<br \/>\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>S.   P. Sinha and M. 1. Khowaja, for respondent No. 1.<br \/>\n1962.  August 27.  The Judgement of the Court was  delivered<br \/>\nby<br \/>\nGAJENDRAGADKAR,\t J.-This appeal by special leave arises\t out<br \/>\nof a Writ Petition filed by the respondent Bagleshwar Prasad<br \/>\nagainst the Board of High School and Intermediate Education,<br \/>\nU.  P., Allahabad, and its Secretary, appellants 1 &amp; 2,\t and<br \/>\nanother.   By  his petition, the respondent  challenged\t the<br \/>\nvalidity of the order passed by appellant No. 1 on  December<br \/>\n5,  1960,  cancelling the respondent&#8217;s result  at  the\tHigh<br \/>\nSchool\tExamination  held  in 1960.   It  appears  that\t the<br \/>\nrespondent appeared for the said examination from the  Nehru<br \/>\nIntermediate  College  Centre, Bindki.\tHe was\tdeclared  to<br \/>\nhave  passed  the said examination in the 11  Division\twith<br \/>\ndistinction  in\t Art.  Thereafter,  he\tjoined\tIntermediate<br \/>\nfirst year class in the Kulbaskar Ashram Agriculture College<br \/>\nat  Allahabad.\t On the 3rd September, 1960, he\t received  a<br \/>\nletter\tfrom the Principal, Adarsh Higher Secondary  School,<br \/>\nKora  Jahanabad,  from where he had appeared  for  the\tHigh<br \/>\nSchool examination, calling upon him to appear before a Sub-<br \/>\nCommittee  to answer the charge of having used unfair  means<br \/>\nin English,<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t    769<\/span><br \/>\nMathematics  and  Hindi papers.\t  Accordingly,\the  appeared<br \/>\nbefore\tthe said Sub-Committee.\t A charge was given  to\t him<br \/>\nand  his explanation was obtained on the said charge.\tThis<br \/>\ncharge was based on the fact that in Hindi 3rd paper set  at<br \/>\nthe said examination, the respondent had given wrong answers<br \/>\nto  Question No. 4 in precisely the same firm in  which\t the<br \/>\nsaid  answers had been given by a candidate whose  Roll\t No.<br \/>\nwas  91733.   The  respondont&#8217;s Roll  No.  was\t91731.\t The<br \/>\nrespondent was shown the identical wrong answers to the said<br \/>\nQuestion  which\t were found in the two papers,\tand  he\t was<br \/>\nasked  to  explaining about the said identity of  the  wrong<br \/>\nanswers.  He admitted that the wrong answers appeared to  be<br \/>\nidentical, but he denied that he had used any unfair  means.<br \/>\nThe  Sub-Committee  however,  was  not\tsatisfied  with\t the<br \/>\nexplanation  and reported that both the respondent  and\t the<br \/>\ncandidate  whose Roll No. was 94733 had used  unfair  means.<br \/>\nAs  a  result of the report made by the\t Sub-Committee,\t the<br \/>\nfirst  appellant passed an order cancelling the\t results  of<br \/>\nboth the candidates.  Both the said candidates disputed\t the<br \/>\nvalidity  of  the said order, in the Allahabad\tHigh  Court.<br \/>\nThe petition filed by the candidate whose Roll No. was 94733<br \/>\nwas  dismissed, but that of the respondent was allowed,\t and<br \/>\nthe impugned order passed by appellant No-1 cancelling,\t the<br \/>\nresult of the respondent in the High School examination\t for<br \/>\n1960, has been set aside.  It is against this order that the<br \/>\nappellants have come to this Court by special leave.<br \/>\nFrom  the petition field by the the High Court (W.   P.\t No.<br \/>\n3469 of 1960) it appears that he challenged the validity  of<br \/>\nthe  impugned  order  on  several  grounds.   The  principal<br \/>\ncontentions raised by the petitioner against the  competence<br \/>\nand  the  authority  of\t appellant  No.1  and  against\t the<br \/>\nregularity  and\t fairness  of the enquiry  held,  srose\t for<br \/>\ndecision-  before the High Court in the companion W. P.\t No.<br \/>\n3196 of 1960 also.  The High<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">770<\/span><br \/>\nCourt rejected the said contentions of law in that W.  P.<br \/>\nand  for  the  reasons\trecorded in  the  judgment  in\tthat<br \/>\npetition, the said contentions were rejected even   in\t the<br \/>\npresent petition.  Thus, the challenge\tto  the validity  of<br \/>\nthe order made on points of law was not sustained.<br \/>\nThe  High Court then proceeded to examine the narrow  ground<br \/>\nof  attack against the validity of the order which was\tmade<br \/>\non  the basis that the impugned order was not  supported  by<br \/>\nany  evidence at all.  It appears from the judgment  of\t the<br \/>\nHigh  Court that the High court was inclined to accept\tthis<br \/>\nargument  and it has set aside the order on the ground\tthat<br \/>\nit  is\tnot supported by any evidence.\tThe  correctness  of<br \/>\nthis finding is seriously disputed before us by the  learned<br \/>\nAdvocate-General who appears for the appellants.<br \/>\nIt  is common ground that the proceed in taken\tagainst\t the<br \/>\nrespondent  in respect of the unfair means alleged  to\thave<br \/>\nbeen adopted by him at the examination, are in the nature of<br \/>\nquasi-judicial\tproceedings, and as such, in a proper  case,<br \/>\norders\tpassed as a result of the said proceedings would  be<br \/>\nliable\tto be challenged under Art.226 of the  Constitution.<br \/>\nIt  is\talso  common ground that the  High  Court  would  be<br \/>\njustified in quashing the impugned order if it is  satisfied<br \/>\nthat the said order is not based on any evidence at all.  An<br \/>\norder passed by a Tribunal holding a quasi-judicial  enquiry<br \/>\nwhich is not supported by any evidence, is an order which is<br \/>\nerroneous  on  the face of it and as such, is liable  to  be<br \/>\nquashed\t  by  the  High\t Court\tin  exercise  of  its\thigh<br \/>\nprerogative jurisdiction to issue a writ under Art. 226.<br \/>\nIn  the\t present  case, the High Court has  found  that\t the<br \/>\nconclusion of the enquiry Committee that the respondent\t had<br \/>\ncopied either from the answer book of the candidate  bearing<br \/>\nRoll No-947 3 or<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t    771<\/span><br \/>\nfrom  a common source, was not supported by any evidence  In<br \/>\ncoming\tto this conclusion, the High Court has assumed\tthat<br \/>\nthe  charge  against the respondent was that he\t had  copied<br \/>\nfrom the candidate bearing Roll No. 94733.  Having made this<br \/>\nassumption,  the High Court has observed that there  was  no<br \/>\ncharge against the respondent that he connived in the act of<br \/>\ncopying by the other candidate ,from his answer-book, and it<br \/>\nhas  added  that  there\t is no evidence\t in  proof  of\tsuch<br \/>\nconnivance.  The High Court has also stated that no evidence<br \/>\nhad been shown to justify the allegations that any  outsider<br \/>\nhad  helped the candidate, including the respondent.   That,<br \/>\nin brief, is the genesis of the final conclusion of the High<br \/>\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n<p>It appears that the High Court was in error in assuming that<br \/>\nthe  only  charge  against the respondent was  that  he\t had<br \/>\ncopied\tfrom  the paper of the candidate  bearing  Roll\t No.<br \/>\n94733 and this error is basically responsible for the  other<br \/>\nobservations made by the High Court.  The translation of the<br \/>\ncharge\tas it has been printed in the record before  us,  no<br \/>\ndoubt,\tseems  to support the assumption made  by  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt in regard to the nature of the charge&#8217; But the  charge<br \/>\nwas  framed in Hindi and it is common ground before us\tthat<br \/>\nthe  Hindi charge has not been properly translated from\t the<br \/>\nrecord\twhen it seems to show that what was alleged  against<br \/>\nthe  respondent\t was  only  that  he  had  copied  out\tfrom<br \/>\ncandidate bearing Roll No. 94733.  The charge, in terms, was<br \/>\nthat having regard to the identity of the mistaken  answers,<br \/>\nthe  apprehension was that there had been copying, and\tthat<br \/>\nis very different from saying that the only charge was\tthat<br \/>\nthe  respondent had copied from the other  candidate.\tThis<br \/>\nposition is made very clear when we consider the explanation<br \/>\ngiven by the respondent.  In his explanation, the respondent<br \/>\nbad<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">772<\/span><br \/>\nstated that he had not copied out from the answer-, book  of<br \/>\nany  candidate, nor had he allowed anyone to copy  out\tfrom<br \/>\nhis  answer-book, so far as he could.  He admitted that\t the<br \/>\nmistaken  answers  in the two papers were identical  and  he<br \/>\npleaded\t &#8216;that\the could not say any thing as  to  why\tthis<br \/>\nhappened.   He\twas also asked whether he had got  any\thelp<br \/>\nfrom  outside  and he gave an answer in\t the  negative.\t  It<br \/>\nwould  thus be seen that at the enquiry, the charge  against<br \/>\nthe  respondent\t was, either that he copied  from  candidate<br \/>\nbearing\t Roll  No. 94733, or that he connived  at  the\tsaid<br \/>\ncandidate copying from his answer-book, or that both of them<br \/>\nhad copied from a common source.  In either case, &#8216;it  would<br \/>\namount to the adoption, of unfair means.  Therefore, in\t our<br \/>\nopinion,  the High Court was in error in assuming  that\t the<br \/>\ncharge\twas  very narrow and did not include the  two  other<br \/>\nalternatives  on  which\t the adoption of  unfair  means\t was<br \/>\nsought to be established.\n<\/p>\n<p>There\tis  another  circumstance  which  is  relevant\t and<br \/>\nsignificant  and that has been ignored by the High Court  in<br \/>\ndealing\t  with\tthis  petition:\t It  appears  that  at\t the<br \/>\nexamination held at Bindki Centre, unfair means were adopted<br \/>\non a very large scale by a large number of students and\t the<br \/>\nexamination appears to have been conducted in an  atmosphere<br \/>\nwhich  was  not at all congenial to the enforcement  of\t the<br \/>\ndiscipline   which   has  to  be  observed   in\t  conducting<br \/>\nexaminations.  It appears that there are rivalries and party<br \/>\npolitics  in  the Municipal Board of Bindki  that  runs\t the<br \/>\ninstitution  at which this examination was held,  and  there<br \/>\nare rivalries and party politics even amongst the members of<br \/>\nthe  staff.   The members of the Municipal Board  and  other<br \/>\ninfluential  people of the locality bring undue pressure  on<br \/>\nthe  Principal and the Invigilators to help their  wards  or<br \/>\nthe wards<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t    773<\/span><br \/>\nof  their friends and relatives in the Board&#8217;s\tExamination.<br \/>\nAs  a  result of this unhealthy atmosphere,  the  Centre  at<br \/>\nBindki\tfor High School examination had been  abolished\t for<br \/>\nsome  years,  but on account of public pressure it  was\t re-<br \/>\nstarted in 1960, and the result was very unfortunate.<br \/>\nIt  also  appears that on the day of  English  paper,  while<br \/>\nstudents  were answering the paper in Room No. 3, an  answer<br \/>\npaper by some outsider was dropped into the room 15  minutes<br \/>\nbefore\tthe time to answer questions was over.&#8217;\t This  paper<br \/>\nwas  thrown in room No. 3 from room No. 18.  It was a  typed<br \/>\npaper  giving answers to all the Questions.   The  Assistant<br \/>\nteacher,   Khajuha,  who  was  one  of\t the   Invigilators,<br \/>\ncomplained  that the Parcha was typed in the office  of\t the<br \/>\nSuperintendent\tof  the\t Centre,  but  this  allegation\t was<br \/>\ndenied.\t  Indeed, from the reports made by the\tinvigilators<br \/>\nand  the findings made by the Enquiry Committee, it  appears<br \/>\nthat the Invigilators themselves were so much frightened  by<br \/>\nthe  prevailing\t rowdyism and by pressure  from\t influential<br \/>\npeople\tthat  they found themselves  powerless\tto  maintain<br \/>\ndiscipline  in the examination hall.  It is, therefore,\t not<br \/>\nsurprising that some invigilators could not prevent  copying<br \/>\nand  in fact, six of them had to be warned to be careful  in<br \/>\nfuture.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  report  of the enquiry committee also  shows  that\t the<br \/>\ncomplaints  which  they\t were  to  investigate\treferred  to<br \/>\ncopying\t on a large scale in several papers  besides  Hindi,<br \/>\nand it is after examining all the complaints in the light of<br \/>\nthe  evidence available to them that the Committee made\t its<br \/>\nfinal  report;\tand  in\t that  report,\tit  held  that\t the<br \/>\nrespondent and candidate bearing Roll No. 94733 were  guilty<br \/>\nof having used unfair means.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">774<\/span><\/p>\n<p>  In  dealing with the question as to whether the  Committee<br \/>\nwas  justified\tin  coming to this  conclusion\tagainst\t the<br \/>\nrespondent,  it\t would\tnot be reasonable  to  exclude\tfrom<br \/>\nconsideration  the  circumstances  under  which\t the   whole<br \/>\nenquiry\t came to be hold and the general background  of\t the<br \/>\nprevailing   disturbed\t and  riotous  atmosphere   in\t the<br \/>\nExamination  Hall  during  the days  that  the\tHigh  School<br \/>\nExamination was held at the Centre in 1960.   Unfortunately,<br \/>\nthe High Court has ignored this background altogether.<br \/>\nBefore\tthe  High Court, a statement was filed\tshowing\t the<br \/>\nseating arrangement in Room No. 10 where the respondent\t was<br \/>\nsitting for writing his answers.   It  appears that  he\t was<br \/>\nNo. 3 in the 3rd row, whereas the other candidate with\tRoll<br \/>\nNo.  94733 was No. 4 in the second row.\t The High Court\t was<br \/>\nvery  much impressed by the fact that the  respondent  could<br \/>\nnot have looked back and copied from the answer. book of the<br \/>\nother candidate, and the High Court did not think that there<br \/>\nwas any evidence to show that the other candidate could have<br \/>\ncopied\tfrom the respondents paper with his connivance.\t  We<br \/>\nhave  looked at the incorrect answers ourselves and  we\t are<br \/>\nnot  prepared to hold that the identical  incorrect  answers<br \/>\nwere  given by the two candidates either by accident  or  by<br \/>\ncoincidence.\tSome   of  the\t incorrect   answers,\tand,<br \/>\nparticularly,  the  manner in which they  have\tbeen  given,<br \/>\nclearly\t suggest  that they were the result  of\t either\t one<br \/>\ncandidate copying from the other, or both candidates copying<br \/>\nfrom  a\t common source.\t The significance of this  fact\t has<br \/>\nbeen  completely  missed by the High  Court.   The  question<br \/>\nbefore the Enquiry Committee had to be decided by it in\t the<br \/>\nlight of the nature of the incorrect answers themselves, and<br \/>\nthat  is what the Enquiry Committee has done.  It would,  we<br \/>\nthink<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> 775<\/span><br \/>\nbe  inappropriate in such a case to require direct  evidence<br \/>\nto  show  that\tthe respondent could have  looked  back\t and<br \/>\ncopied\tfrom the answer written by the other  candidate\t who<br \/>\nwas  sitting  behind him.  There was still  the\t alternative<br \/>\npossibility  that  the\tcandidate sitting  behind  may\thave<br \/>\ncopied from the respondent with his connivance.\t It is\talso<br \/>\nnot unlikely that the two candidates may have talked to each<br \/>\nother.\t The atmosphere prevailing in the  Examination\tHall<br \/>\ndoes  not rule out this possibility.  These are all  matters<br \/>\nwhich  the Enquiry Committee had to consider, and the  fact.<br \/>\nthat  the  Enquiry  Committee did  not\twrite  an  elaborate<br \/>\nreport,\t does  not  mean that it did not  consider  all\t the<br \/>\nrelevant  facts\t before it came to the conclusion  that\t the<br \/>\nrespondent had used unfair&#8217; means.\n<\/p>\n<p>In  dealing with petitions of this type, it is necessary  to<br \/>\nbear   in  mind\t that  educational  institutions  like\t the<br \/>\nUniversities or appellant No. 1 set up Enquiry Committees to<br \/>\ndeal with the problem posed by the adoption of unfair  means<br \/>\nby candidates, and normally it is within the jurisdiction of<br \/>\nsuch domestic Tribunals to decide all relevant questions  in<br \/>\nthe  light  of\tthe evidence adduced before  them.   In\t the<br \/>\nmatter of the adoption of unfair means, direct evidence\t may<br \/>\nsometimes  be  available, but cases may arise  where  direct<br \/>\nevidence  is not available and the question will have to  be<br \/>\nconsidered in the light of probabilities and  circumstantial<br \/>\nevidence.  This problem which educational institutions\thave<br \/>\nto  face from time to time is a serious- problem and  unless<br \/>\nthere  is justification to do so, courts should be  slow  to<br \/>\ninterfere with the decisions of domestic Tribunals appointed<br \/>\nby  educational\t bodies like the Universities.\t In  dealing<br \/>\nwith   the  validity  of  the  impugned\t orders\t passed\t  by<br \/>\nUniversities  under Art. 226, the High Court is not  sitting<br \/>\nin appeal over the decision in question; its jurisdiction is<br \/>\nlimited and though,<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">776<\/span><br \/>\nit  is true that if the impugned order is not  supported  by<br \/>\nany  evidence, at all, the High Court would be justified  to<br \/>\nquash  that  order.  But the conclusion\t that  the  impugned<br \/>\norder is not supported by any evidence must be reached after<br \/>\nconsidering  the  question as to whether  probabilities\t and<br \/>\ncircumstantial evidence do not justify the said\t conclusion.<br \/>\nEnquiries held by domestic Tribunals in such cases must,  no<br \/>\ndoubt, be fair and students against whom charges are  framed<br \/>\nmust  be given adequate opportunities to  defend  themselves<br \/>\nand   in   holding  such  enquiries,  the   Tribunal,\tmust<br \/>\nscrupulously follow rules of natural justice; but it  would,<br \/>\nwe  think, not be reasonable to import into these  enquiries<br \/>\nall considerations which govern criminal trials in  ordinary<br \/>\ncourts of law.\tIn the present case, no animus is  suggested<br \/>\nand  no malafides have been pleaded.  The enquiry  has\tbeen<br \/>\nfair and the respondent has had an opportunity of making his<br \/>\ndefence.   That\t being so, we think the High Court  was\t not<br \/>\njustified  in interfering with the order passed against\t the<br \/>\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>We  ought,  however, to add that though we are\tinclined  to<br \/>\naccept\tthe argument raised by the learned  Advocate-General<br \/>\nagainst the decision of the High Court, we do not propose to<br \/>\nmake  any consequential order is favour of  the\t appellants,<br \/>\nbecause\t the  learned Advocate General has  fairly  conceded<br \/>\nthat he does not want any such order in the present  appeal.<br \/>\nIt  appears that the respondent has, in June,  1962,  passed<br \/>\nhis Intermediate Examination and it has been fairly conceded<br \/>\nthat  there is no intention to disturb his career under\t the<br \/>\npresent circumstances.\tThe learned Advocate-General  wanted<br \/>\na  decision  from us in this appeal because  he\t apprehended<br \/>\nthat  the  reasoning adopted by the High  Court\t in  setting<br \/>\naside  the  order  passed  against  the\t respondent  may  be<br \/>\nconstrued to mean that<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">777<\/span><br \/>\nunder Art. 226, the High Court can examine the merits of the<br \/>\norder passed by appellant No. 1 in such cases.<br \/>\nThe result is, though we agree with the appellants that\t the<br \/>\norder passed by the High Court was not justified, we refrain<br \/>\nfrom setting it aside for the reasons just explained.  There<br \/>\nwould be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India The Board Of High School &amp; &#8230; vs Bagleshwar Prasad &amp; Others on 27 August, 1962 Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 875, 1963 SCR (3) 767 Author: P Gajendragadkar Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B. PETITIONER: THE BOARD OF HIGH SCHOOL &amp; INTER-MEDIATE EDUCATION U. P. Vs. RESPONDENT: BAGLESHWAR PRASAD &amp; OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-147539","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The Board Of High School &amp; ... vs Bagleshwar Prasad &amp; Others on 27 August, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-board-of-high-school-vs-bagleshwar-prasad-others-on-27-august-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Board Of High School &amp; ... vs Bagleshwar Prasad &amp; Others on 27 August, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-board-of-high-school-vs-bagleshwar-prasad-others-on-27-august-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1962-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-13T23:29:27+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-board-of-high-school-vs-bagleshwar-prasad-others-on-27-august-1962#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-board-of-high-school-vs-bagleshwar-prasad-others-on-27-august-1962\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Board Of High School &amp; &#8230; vs Bagleshwar Prasad &amp; Others on 27 August, 1962\",\"datePublished\":\"1962-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-13T23:29:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-board-of-high-school-vs-bagleshwar-prasad-others-on-27-august-1962\"},\"wordCount\":2822,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-board-of-high-school-vs-bagleshwar-prasad-others-on-27-august-1962#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-board-of-high-school-vs-bagleshwar-prasad-others-on-27-august-1962\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-board-of-high-school-vs-bagleshwar-prasad-others-on-27-august-1962\",\"name\":\"The Board Of High School &amp; ... vs Bagleshwar Prasad &amp; Others on 27 August, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1962-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-13T23:29:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-board-of-high-school-vs-bagleshwar-prasad-others-on-27-august-1962#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-board-of-high-school-vs-bagleshwar-prasad-others-on-27-august-1962\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-board-of-high-school-vs-bagleshwar-prasad-others-on-27-august-1962#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Board Of High School &amp; &#8230; vs Bagleshwar Prasad &amp; Others on 27 August, 1962\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Board Of High School &amp; ... vs Bagleshwar Prasad &amp; Others on 27 August, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-board-of-high-school-vs-bagleshwar-prasad-others-on-27-august-1962","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Board Of High School &amp; ... vs Bagleshwar Prasad &amp; Others on 27 August, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-board-of-high-school-vs-bagleshwar-prasad-others-on-27-august-1962","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1962-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-13T23:29:27+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-board-of-high-school-vs-bagleshwar-prasad-others-on-27-august-1962#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-board-of-high-school-vs-bagleshwar-prasad-others-on-27-august-1962"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Board Of High School &amp; &#8230; vs Bagleshwar Prasad &amp; Others on 27 August, 1962","datePublished":"1962-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-13T23:29:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-board-of-high-school-vs-bagleshwar-prasad-others-on-27-august-1962"},"wordCount":2822,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-board-of-high-school-vs-bagleshwar-prasad-others-on-27-august-1962#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-board-of-high-school-vs-bagleshwar-prasad-others-on-27-august-1962","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-board-of-high-school-vs-bagleshwar-prasad-others-on-27-august-1962","name":"The Board Of High School &amp; ... vs Bagleshwar Prasad &amp; Others on 27 August, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1962-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-13T23:29:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-board-of-high-school-vs-bagleshwar-prasad-others-on-27-august-1962#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-board-of-high-school-vs-bagleshwar-prasad-others-on-27-august-1962"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-board-of-high-school-vs-bagleshwar-prasad-others-on-27-august-1962#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Board Of High School &amp; &#8230; vs Bagleshwar Prasad &amp; Others on 27 August, 1962"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/147539","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=147539"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/147539\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=147539"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=147539"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=147539"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}