Remanded

Reeta v. Chairman, School Education Board Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Feb 2010CWP/12113/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged disqualification for one year due to alleged unfair means in 10th class exam. Court found no inquiry held and no opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. Ordered fresh inquiry by Board with natural justice within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Board to hold fresh inquiry observing natural justice and provide cross-examination opportunity within two months.

Reeta Vs Chairman, School Education Board… — Education and Admissions | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Civil Writ Petition No.12113 of 2009

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

-.-

¶5

Civil Writ Petition No.12113 of 2009 Date of decision:- 9.2.2010

Reeta

.... Petitioner

Versus

Chairman, School Education Board, Haryana. .... Respondents.

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI

¶11

Present:- Mr. Jitender Nara, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Sanjeev Ghai, Advocate, for the respondents.

¶13

Permod Kohli, J.

¶14

The petitioner has been disqualified from further study and appearing in the examination for a period of one year on account of using unfair means during the examination. This petition has been filed by the petitioner a minor through her father.

¶15

The admitted facts on record are that Rita, petitioner herein was a student of 10^th Class at B.K.D High School Salhawas (Jhajjar). She appeared for the maths examination on 5.3.2009 under Roll No. 2208590987. During the Course of examination a flying squad visited the examination centre. A handwritten slip was found and the petitioner attempted to throw it, but she was apprehended. The slip was attached with answer sheet and she was given another answer sheet which she attempted.

¶16

A notice dated 20.3.2001 was given to the petitioner and she was asked to appear before the Standing Committee for the use of unfair means on 1.4.2009. The petitioner had appeared before the Committee. After

¶17

Civil Writ Petition No.12113 of 2009

¶18

-2-

¶19

hearing the petitioner, the impugned order dated 4.5.2009 (Annexure P-1) with the writ petition has been passed whereby the petitioner has been communicated that the committee has found her guilty under the Regulation 132 of the Regulations for use of unfair means and she is disqualified for one year. The petitioner has also placed on record and assailed the decision of the Standing Committee taken on 1.4.2009 as Annexure P-2. Both these orders are under challenge. While admitting that the petitioner was given an opportunity to appear before the Standing Committee, the impugned orders have been challenged on the two grounds (i) violation of principle of natural justice; (ii) non-recording of reasons.

¶20

In the reply filed by the Board it is stated that during the Course of examination the flying squad visited the Centre and a handwritten slip was found in the hands of petitioner which she attempted to throw. The matter was reported to the examination superintended. The handwritten slip was attached with the answer sheet and a separate answer sheet was given to the petitioner. It is also stated that hand written slip pertain to the subject of the exam. On receipt of the report from the Superintendent and from the flying squad, the matter was referred to the Standing Committee constituted for unfair means cases. Petitioner was asked to appear before the Committee and after hearing her, the impugned order has been passed.

¶21

I have pursued the record produced by Mr. Sanjeev Ghai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Board. From the proceedings of the Committee, it appears that the Committee has simply recorded its conclusion “charges stand proved. Hence, disqualified for one year under

¶22

Civil Writ Petition No.12113 of 2009

¶23

-3-

¶24

Regulation – 132”. Except asking the petitioner to appear before the Committee no other opportunity was provided to her. Even statements of the flying squad officials and the examination superintendent who reported the alleged use of unfair means were not recorded what to say of providing any opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses. Regulation 132 relied upon by the respondents where under the action has been taken which has been reproduced in the reply. I have perused the regulation, it only deals with possession of incriminating material. No regulation has been brought to the notice of the Court which inter alia deals with holding of enquiry in case of unfair means. From the record it appears that except referring the matter to the Standing Committee meant for unfair means cases and asking the petitioner to appear before the Standing Committee, no further enquiry was conducted.

¶25

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that she has not used the slip in the examination and it was lying along her side. She attempted to throw it when the flying squad visited. Petitioner has also relied upon a judgment of this Court reported as Sunit Nayyar Vs. Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar & Ors. 2006(2) RSJ 365 . In this judgment regulation 132 has not been referred to. Regulation 132 clearly provide that possession of the incriminating material itself amounts to unfair means. Be that as it may, an enquiry is required to be conducted in consonance with the principle of natural justice. No inquiry has been conducted in this case. There has been violation of principles of natural justice.

¶26

This petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the

¶27

Civil Writ Petition No.12113 of 2009

¶28

-4-

¶29

respondent-Board to pass fresh order after holding an inquiry in accordance with the Rules and Regulations by observing principles of natural justice and providing opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses or even to lead evidence if so desired. Let the entire process be completed within two months. The out come of enquiry will decide the question of action against the petitioner.

¶30

Record of Board be returned to Mr. Ghai.

¶31

January , 2010. (Permod Kohli) tripti Judge

Reeta v. Chairman, School Education Board Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reeta v. Chairman, School Education Board Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nachhattar Singh Anr. Vs Kashmira Ram

(O&M) the Punjab State Coop Supply Vs M/S Satish Kumar Contractor Pvt. Ltd.

Milap Chand Vs State of Haryana

Jyoti Vs Maharishi Dayanand University and Ors.

Sahil Trikha Vs Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar and Anr.

Shivani Vs Guru Nanak Devi University and Ors.