Remanded

Rani Nayak v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC19 Oct 2023WP(C)/17247/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court examined a writ petition challenging the withholding of HSC examination results due to alleged malpractice. Finding examiner admission of double handwriting, the court quashed the total rejection and directed the board to allow the student to reappear for the specific paper.

What did the court decide?

Director bound to make arrangements for petitioner to appear in TLS paper once again for final result publication.

Rani Nayak Vs State of Odisha — Education and Admissions | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.17247 of 2023

¶3

An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶4

Rani Nayak . Petitioner Mr. N. Panda, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

.
State of Odisha & others Opp. Parties
Mr. Bibudhendra Dash, Advocate
for O.P. Nos.2, 3, 6 & 8
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA

Date of hearing : 27.09.2023 | Date of Judgment : 19.10.2023

A.K. Mohapatra, J. :
01 . Heard Mr. N. Panda, learned counsel appearing for the

¶7

petitioner as well as Mr. B. Dash, learned counsel for the Board of Secondary Education. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶8

02 . The daughter of the Petitioner who happens to be a good student appeared in the last HSC Examination of the year 2022 conducted by the Board of Secondary Education has approached this Court by filing the present writ application with a prayer for a

¶9

// 2 //

¶10

direction to the Opposite Parties to produce the Sanskrit Paper of the daughter of the Petitioner, the result of which was not published by the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha on the ground that on verification it was found different handwritings have been used in the answer script in respect of the Sanskrit Paper and with a further direction to the Opposite Parties to declare the result of the Petitioner and for payment of compensation of loss one academic year.

¶11

03 . The factual matrix involved in the present writ application, in a nut-shell, is that the daughter of the present Petitioner appeared in the annual HSC Examination in the year, 2022 conducted by the BSE, Odisha and she had a great expectation that she will score well in such examination. The daughter of the petitioner appeared as a regular candidate through Badamba Girls’ High School Centre and appeared in all the papers for which examination was conducted by the BSE, Odisha. It also appears that the examination was conducted under the supervision of BSE, Odisha as well as the Centre Superintendent and Invigilators appointed by BSE, Odisha. It has also been alleged that after successful completion of the examination, no complaint whatsoever was raised by the Centre Superintendent as

¶12

// 3 //

¶13

well as the Invigilator with regard to adoption of malpractice nor

¶14

any disturbance report was submitted before the BSE, Odisha.\

¶15

04 . The writ application further reveals that the BSE, Odisha

¶16

has a reputation of conducting the examination in a free and fair manner over the years as a result of which it enjoys the trust of the students and their parents. However, the result of which in respect of the Petitioner’s daughter’s Centre was not published on the ground that the Centre was put under the malpractice category. It has also been averred in the writ application that although there was no specific complaint with regard to malpractice or disturbance or adoption of corrupt means by the Students by the authorities entrusted with conduct of the examination, the Board authorities later on, on the basis of suspicion, ignoring the bright future of the students appearing from the Badamba Girls’ High School Centre placed the above named Centre under malpractice category and accordingly, the result of the examination were not published.

¶17

05 . Mr. Panda, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the daughter of the Petitioner is a good student and she has successfully come out in every examination she has faced in her life so far. He further contended that daughter of the Petitioner appeared in the last HSC Examination of the year 2022

¶18

// 4 //

¶19

and did very well in the examination and accordingly she was expecting good marks in the final HSC Examination. Mr. Panda went to the extent of narrating that the daughter of the Petitioner is the brightest student of her school. It was emphatically argued by Mr. Panda that no unfair means were adopted in course of the examination by any of the student appearing at the aforesaid examination centre. Moreover, he also contended that no such incident was ever reported to the Board by either the Invigilator or the Centre Superintendent. He also referred to the marks obtained by the daughter of the Petitioner in her class examination conducted by the school in which the daughter of the Petitioner was prosecuting her studies to impress upon this Court that the daughter of the Petitioner is a good student and performs well in the examination.

¶20

06 . Mr. Panda further contended that after appearing in the examination successfully and without there being any complaint whatsoever by the Centre Superintendent or other authorities, who were in-charge of the Centre, the Petitioner as well as his daughter got the shock of their lifetime when the Board took a decision not to publish the result in respect of the above noted examination centre. As a result of which the final result of annual HSCE, 2022 including the daughter of the Petitioner was withheld by the BSE,

¶21

// 5 //

¶22

Odisha. When the Petitioner sought for information under the provision of RTI Act with regard to declaration of the result which was withheld by the Board Authorities, he could ascertain that in the Sanskrit Paper (3rd Language) of the Petitioner there is an objection with regard to the variation in the handwriting of the examinee for which the result of the daughter of the Petitioner has been withheld. Thereafter, the Petitioner has filed a representation before the Board Authorities for redressal of his grievance.

¶23

07 . It was also brought to the notice of the Board-authorities that no objection whatsoever has been raised by the Invigilator or Centre Superintendent with regard to the paper in question. Therefore, it was submitted before this Court that non-publication of the Petitioner’s daughter’s examination result and withholding of the same is an arbitrary exercise of the power vested in the Board. It was also argued before this Court that the PIO, Government Girls’ High School, Badamba and the Centre Superintendent of the Examination Centre informed the Petitioner on 29.08.2022 therein stating that the examination was conducted by the Centre in proper manner. So far the result of the daughter of the Petitioner is concerned, the Petitioner was advised to contact the Board Authorities as the same was not in possession of

¶24

the School authorities or the Centre Superintendent.

¶25

// 6 //

¶26

08 . Learned counsel for the Petitioner further referred to the

¶27

CCTV footage of the examination Centre. He submitted that pursuant to the decision of the BSE, Odisha the annual HSC Examination are being conducted under CCTV surveillance. Therefore, Mr. Panda submitted that before taking such a harsh decision to withhold the result, the board authorities should have verified the CCTV footage of the concerned Examination Centre. Particularly, in a circumstance where there was no complaint received from either the Centre Superintendent or the Invigilator with regard to malpractice being adopted by Students. Therefore, he submitted that there is no evidence on record with regard to malpractice or adoption of any unfair means in the examination.

¶28

09 . Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that he had sought for information under the RTI Act from the Board regarding the decision to withhold the result of the Petitioner’s daughter’s examination centre. However, the authorities did not respond to that as a result of which the Petitioner could not appear in the annual HSC Examination of the 2023 and furthermore, the letter which was sent to the Petitioner was confusing. It was also argued that before taking the decision to withhold the result, no opportunity whatsoever was provided to the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing

¶29

// 7 //

¶30

the present writ application for the release as prayed for in the prayer of the writ application.

¶31

10 . A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Opposite Party No.6 sworn by the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Odisha. In the counter affidavit, the Opposite Party No.6 has specifically stated that the answer script of the TLS subject or belonging to the Petitioner was brought in a special packet by the camp officer of the concerned valuation Centre. On a verification of such answer script, it was found that the answer script has been written in different handwritings which was reported to the Camp Officer by the concerned subject expert. Further, referring to office note dated 24.06.2022 of the Vice President of Board, it was submitted that the Answer scripts were properly verified and after such verification it was found that they have been written in two different handwritings. On prima facie examination of such answer script one can easily presume that two distinct hand writings have been used by two different persons in the said answer book. Therefore, the concerned Invigilators/ Examiners should be held responsible and the candidate is to be booked under MP (Malpractice). Furthermore, the said note also reveals that the malpractice section under the control of examination was instructed to initiate action to follow

¶32

// 8 //

¶33

up the case till end and such decision was duly approved by the Board authorities.

¶34

11 . Such counter affidavit further reveals that the concerned Invigilators who were assigned duty in the examination hall and the examiners who have valued the answer book were also instructed to appear before the authorities on two different dates to face an enquiry for negligence in duty. Such employees appeared before the Board authorities to face the enquiry and submitted their report in writing. Such employees who were in examination duty, in course of enquiry, have expressed in writing that the difference in hand writing reflected in the answer books were beyond their knowledge and few of the examiners during enquiry admitted that they have written the answers in the answer book of a student during valuation to facilitate the student to pass in the subject. Some examiners who appeared during enquiry also expressed that such double handwriting in the answer script were brought to the knowledge of Chief Examiner of the unit. However, the Chief Examiner had instructed them to overlook the same and complete the evaluation work and award marks. So far the daughter of the Petitioner is concerned, it has been stated that one Ganapati Das, who had evaluated the answer script of the daughter of the Petitioner had admitted his guilt and begged

¶35

// 9 //

¶36

apology for the same. A copy of the apology application on 10.08.2022 has been filed as Annexure to the writ application and marked as Annexure-C/6.

¶37

12 . Upon completion of the enquiry, the reports were placed before the Board Authority as per the decision of the Board authorities, the Director, Secondary Education, Odisha, was requested to initiate the Disciplinary Action against the examiners who were involved in such erratic evaluation. Further it was decided that such examiners should not be given evaluation duty in future. Since, the daughter of the Petitioner was found to be involved in a double hand writing case bearing Roll No.083AA0149 of Annual HSC Examination, 2022 in TLS answer book, she was booked under malpractice and accordingly, the result of the daughter of the Petitioner was withheld by the Board authorities.

¶38

13 . The counter affidavit further reveals that the students/ candidates involved in malpractice were informed through their respective Headmasters to show-cause regarding their involvement in malpractice vide Letter No.781 dated 14.07.2022 by Regd. Post. It has also been contended in the counter affidavit that the Board authorities were pleased to allow all the candidates booked under malpractice in Annual HSC Examination, 2022 to

¶39

// 10 //

¶40

appear in Annual HSC Examination, 2023. Since their examination results were cancelled as per Board’s notification dated 21.09.2022 published in “Daily Prameya” dated 22.09.2022. An E-Abhijog of the Petitioner’s daughter in respect of her result in Annual HSC Examination of 2022 was received by the Board on 26.10.2022. The said E-Abhijog has been disposed of vide letter dated 04.01.2023 and a copy of the letter containing the final decision of the authorities has also been sent to the daughter of the Petitioner by Regd. Post.

¶41

14 . Mr. B. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party Nos.2, 3, 6 & 8 submitted before this Court that the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha believes in a free and fair conduct of the examination. He also contended that the Board and its officers have taken action pursuant to the regulations of the Board while conducting the examination and publishing the final result. He further contended that once a complaint was received from the concerned examiner alleging different handwritings, the same was properly enquired into by the Board authorities and once the allegation was found to be credible and supported by evidence, action has been taken against the erring examiners by initiating appropriate proceeding against them. So far the daughter of the Petitioner is concerned, action has been taken against her as

¶42

// 11 //

¶43

per the regulation and accordingly, her result in respect of TLS paper has been withheld on admission of guilt by the examiner who had evaluated the answer script of the daughter of the Petitioner.

¶44

15 . Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the materials on record as well as the background facts, this Court is of the prima facie view that the factual aspects of the matter are all matters of record. Therefore, there is no difficult in coming to a conclusion that the examiner who had evaluated the answer script of the daughter of the Petitioner had committed a gross mistake for reasons best known to him. Moreover, to find out the veracity of the allegation, this Court vide order dated 15.09.2023 called for the answer book of the Petitioner. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the Opposite Party-Board produced the answer book in a sealed cover and the sealed cover was opened in Court. On examination of the answer book, this Court prima facie found that the allegations made by the examiners are correct. This Court could, prima facie, detect that there appears two different handwritings in the answer script and the same was confronted to the learned counsel for the Petitioner and who had no answer to the same.

¶45

Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the allegation made by

¶46

// 12 //

¶47

the board authorities. Moreover, this Court also observed that the Board has acted in terms of their regulation and as such the action taken by the Board does not call for any interference by this Court at this stage. However, since it has been admitted by the examiner that he had written the answers in the answer book of the Petitioner, the entire blame cannot be put on the Petitioner’s daughter. In such view of the matter, this Court deems it proper to direct the Board authorities to make necessary arrangement, as expeditiously as possible, thereby enabling the Petitioner to appear in TLS paper once again and after such examination the final result of the Petitioner’s daughter be published forthwith.

¶48

16 . The writ petition stands disposed of with the observations

¶49

made hereinabove, however, there shall be no order as to cost.

¶50

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 19^th of October, 2023/ Anil.

¶51

Signature Not Verified

¶52

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 25-Oct-2023 15:51:31

Rani Nayak v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rani Nayak v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep Kumar Vs State of Odisha

Shanti Singh Vs State of Odisha

Binod Kumar @ Mukesh Kumar Vs State of Odisha

Dr.Saroj Ku.Pradhan Vs Salini Pandit, IAS

Rojali Parida Vs Basanta Kumar Singha, Superintendent of Post Offices, Baripada

Ruturaj Muduli Vs Pabitra Behera,Executive Officer,Choudwar