Sunita Sharma And Another vs State Of U.P. & Another
2015 Latest Caselaw 322 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Chief Justice's Court                                                                                  AFR
 

 
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 24119 of 2015
 

 
Petitioner :- Sunita Sharma And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- V.C. Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nisheeth Yadav
 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud,Chief Justice
 
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.

The petition has been filed by a practising Advocate and by a former Corporator of the Nagar Nigam, Allahabad. The subject matter of the petition is a leak which took place, of the first paper of the Uttar Pradesh Provincial Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination-2015, which was held on 29 March 2015 at 917 centres across the State.

According to the submission of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission1, question papers were distributed in sealed envelopes to each of the centres on the morning of 29 March 2015, two hours before the commencement of the examination. According to the Commission, the sealed envelope was opened unauthorizedly at a centre at Lucknow by the Manager of the Institution to which the centre was allotted. The paper was then leaked and circulated on the social media. The Commission has stated that 2,65,039 candidates appeared in the preliminary examination for the first paper. The examination for the second paper was held thereafter on the same day in the afternoon at which 2,62,190 candidates appeared. 2849 candidates have dropped out. A decision has been taken by the Commission to hold a fresh examination on 10 May 2015, for the first paper in respect of which the leak had occurred.

In these proceedings, several reliefs have been sought. These are (i) a direction in the nature of a mandamus for handing over the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation; (ii) a mandamus to the Commission to cancel the entire examination; (iii) a mandamus to hold the examination afresh; and (iv) a direction to withdraw the criminal cases which were registered against the students.

During the course of the hearing, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent has apprised the Court of an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in an earlier proceeding in Ayodhya Prasad Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.2, decided on 9 April 2015. In that case, the petitioners sought a writ, order or direction for setting aside the notification cancelling the examination which was conducted, for the first paper, on 29 March 2015 and determining to hold a re-examination on 10 May 2015. Among other reliefs which were sought, the petitioners also prayed for cancellation of the entire examination and for an enquiry through an independent agency. The Division Bench dismissed the writ petition on 9 April 2015 in the following terms:

"We have proceeded to consider the respective arguments that has been so advanced on behalf of the petitioners and what we find from the record that in reference of General Study Ist paper of Provincial Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2015 there has been a report of leak of aforementioned paper. Material that has come on record has been to the effect that paper was leaked before 9.30 A.M. and as said leakage has been in the media glare and in the knowledge to all, the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, Allahabad has taken conscious decision for the cancellation of General Study Ist paper that has been leaked. Once in order to maintain fairness and transparency in the examination which has come to the knowledge and notice of U.P. Public Service Commission that there has been leakage of General Study Ist paper of Provincial Civil Services Preliminary Examination, 2015, then Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, Allahabad in its wisdom has chosen to hold re-examination then petitioners legitimately cannot resist the same, as free, fair and transparent examination has to be the hall mark of public examination, and once the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, Allahabad has proceeded in the direction of holding of free, fair and transparent re-examination then we refuse to interfere in the ongoing process of re-examination schedule to take place on 10.05.2015.

Now coming to the second prayer that has been so made for canceling entire examination of Provincial Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2015 and to make inquiry from independent agency about the anomalies and bungling. Suffice is to mention that it is for the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, Allahabad to see and ensure and satisfy itself as to whether rest of the examination has been held in free, fare and transparent manner or not?. But as far as this Court is concern, this Court cannot direct the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, Allahabad to cancel the entire examination of Provincial Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2015, merely on asking for, any without substantiating the allegations and specially when Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, Allahabad is satisfied that other examinations have been carried out in free, fair and transparent manner, in view of this, other prayer as has been so prayed, does not warrant any further consideration."

The dismissal of the writ petition by the Division Bench substantially covered the area sought to be traversed in these proceedings. The reliefs which have been sought in these proceedings include, conducting of an investigation by the CBI; cancellation of the entire examination; holding of a fresh examination; and withdrawal of criminal cases lodged against the students. The prayer for an independent investigation by a third party agency has been specifically declined by the Division Bench. The Division Bench has also specifically rejected the prayer for cancelling the entire examination and for holding a fresh examination. The prayer for withdrawal of criminal cases which have been registered against the students cannot be entertained in these proceedings. Ultimately, each individual case would have to be scrutinized. The persons against whom the first information reports have been lodged, would be entitled to their remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Any adjudication by the Court would seriously impinge upon those proceedings, particularly in the absence of such persons. Hence, it would not be appropriate and proper for the Court to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction, particularly in the absence of any factual foundation in the pleadings in regard to the nature of the criminal cases; the factual background in which the first information reports were lodged; and most importantly, in the absence of the persons who are directly affected.

There is, however, one aspect of the matter which is of concern to the Court and which can legitimately be the subject matter of these proceedings. The fact that a leak did take place in the course of the preliminary examination is not in dispute. As we have noted earlier, 2,65,039 candidates appeared at the preliminary examination for the first paper. These examinations which are conducted by the Commission are of seminal importance to the careers of lacs of students across the State. All of them are expected to have studied hard and burnt the midnight oil in the aspiration and hope that success in the examination would enable them to compete for a job in a department of the State. Jobs are difficult to come by and even a marginal difference of marks can affect the career of a student. Hence, it is all the more necessary that the examinations which are conducted under the authority of the Commission continue to retain their sanctity. The sanctity of the examinations process depends upon the confidence that is generated in the minds of the public. If young students who appear at the examinations, were to lose their faith in the examinations which are conducted by the Commission, that will strike at the very root of the credibility of the Commission. Fairness, transparency and objectivity in the conduct of examinations, particularly those conducted by a constitutional body, such as the Commission, must be maintained. Nepotism of any kind whatsoever and by any one howsoever high or low must be rooted out with iron hands. The fact that a leak has taken place at an examination which was conducted on such a large scale involving 917 centres across the State where 2,65,039 candidates appeared, is suggestive of the fact that it is necessary for the Commission to conduct its own internal audit in the matter.

In our view, the mere fact that the criminal law of the land has been set in motion by registering a first information report against the Manager of the Institution where, it is alleged, the leak has taken place, would not be sufficient to close the matter. The criminal law will take its own course and any person who is found guilty would have to be suitably dealt with in accordance with law. Public authorities cannot bury their hands in sand and look askance. The observations which we have made are intended to ensure that the Commission, in the discharge of its constitutional duties, takes a serious note of the lapse which took place and adopts preventive steps for the future. What the nature of the preventive steps should be, is a matter for the Commission, as an expert body, to decide. In order to ensure that such incidents do not take place in the future, it is necessary that a responsible constitutional body, such as the Commission, does take necessary steps by conducting its own internal assessment or audit of the circumstances in which the lapse took place, affixing responsibility, if any, upon any individual who is found guilty and by taking suitable measures to ensure that such incidents do not recur in future examinations. Appointment to a public service is even today an important source of social mobility. The Commission, which is entrusted with a solemn obligation of conducting examinations transparently, must take all necessary precautions to ensure that the systems and processes which it puts into place enable the maintenance of the highest standards of rectitude. We, therefore, expect that the Commission shall look into all aspects of the matter and take such remedial action as would be warranted in accordance with law. We have already expressed our reasons why the other reliefs which have been sought in the terms as prayed, cannot be granted. Having regard to the importance of the issue raised and the impact on the lives and careers of young aspirants, we have indicated our views. The Public Service Commission must act and act decisively.

The petition shall, accordingly, stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Order Date :- 4.5.2015

RKK/-

				  (M.K. Gupta, J)         (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, CJ)