Delhi High Court
Sahibjeet Singh vs Board Of Technical Education on 27 November, 2013
Author: V. K. Jain
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 27.11.2013
+ WP(C) No.7076 of 2013
SAHIBJEET SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Charanjeet, Mr. S.S. Gulati &
Mr. Tarun Satija, Advs.
versus
BOARD OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Zubeda Begum, Standing Counsel,
GNCTD with Ms. Sana Ansari, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN
JUDGEMENT
V.K.JAIN, J. (Oral)
The petitioner before this Court was studying in GTB
Polytechnic, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi pursuing a three year Diploma
Course in Automobile Engineering. The study in the said course
consists of six semesters. In the examinations held in December, 2012-
January, 2013 the petitioner appeared in the fifth semester examination
and also re-appeared in two papers of the third semester in which he had
failed during regular semester examination. On 14.12.2012, the flying
squad of the Board of Technical Education checked the petitioner and
found that he was carrying with him a note containing material which
was relevant for Principles of Thermal Engineering, the paper in which
the petitioner was appearing at that time.
2. Vide notice dated 11.1.2013, the petitioner was required to appear
before the Examination Committee of the Board on 31.1.2013. The
petitioner accordingly appeared before the Committee and after hearing
him the Committee decided to cancel his supplementary examination of
the third term as well as the regular examination of the fifth term, in
terms of Rule 11B of the Board.
3. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid decision, the petitioner filed
WP (C) No.6001/2013 which came to be disposed of vide order dated
20.9.2013 with a direction to the University to treat the said petition as a
representation from the petitioner for reducing the quantum of
punishment. Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the
Examination Committee of the Board re-considered the matter but
maintained the punishment which it had earlier imposed upon the
petitioner. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order passed by the
Committee the petitioner is before this Court seeking the following
reliefs:
"a. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing
Order dated 4.3.2013 bearing
No.F.No.51(5)/Dec/2012/Exam/BTE/UF/489 passed by the
respondent, whereby the respondent declared the entire Board
Examination as cancelled in terms of Rule 11B of the Board
consequently the result of the petitioner declared vide 2.4.2013
was also treated as cancelled.
b. Issue a writ in the nature mandamus thereby directing
the respondent to restore the petitioner's result in terms of
result declared vide dated 2.4.2013 on the notice board of the
respondent, in which the petitioner was passed."
4. Rule 11 of the Rules framed by the Board with respect to
punishment for using unfair means in the Board examination to the
extent it is relevant reads as under:
"11. PUNISHMENT FOR USE OF UNFAIR MEANS
.... .... .... .... ....
....
Part-B PUNISHMENT
Cancellation of the Entire Examination.
Offence:
1. Where the candidate is found having in his possession
papers, books or notes or is found having written notes on the
question paper or on any part of the clothes worn by him or on
a part of his body or table or desk or is found in possession of
ruler and/or instruments like; Set-squares protractors, slide
rules etc. With notes written on them and which notes, papers
or the material written on ruler or instrument, or on the
question paper or on clothes worn by him/her or any part of his
body, table or desk etc., could be helpful or of assistance to
him in answering the paper he is taking or could be helpful or
of assistance to other candidate in that examination hall, but
the candidate has not attempted to take any assistance himself
or give any assistance to any other candidate from such
material.
2. Where the candidate intentionally tears off the answer
book or a part thereof or a continuation sheet.
3. Where the candidates deliberately discloses his identity
or makes any distinctive mark in the answer book for that
purpose in contravention of any general rules in this behalf.
4. Where the candidate uses abusive or obscene language
in the answer book.
5. Where the candidate is guilty of misbehaviour in
connection with the examination, with the Superintendent of
Centre, the invigilator on duty and the other staff working at
the examination centre or with any other candidate in or
around the Examination Centre before, during or after the
examination.
6. Where the candidate leaves the examination room
before expiry of half an hour without the written permission of
the Superintendent of the centre and/or without handing the
answer book to the Invigilator/In-charge and/or without
signing the attendance sheet."
5. It would, thus, be seen that in case a candidate is found in
possession of papers or notes which could be helpful or of assistance to
him in answering the paper he is taking or could be helpful or of
assistance to other candidates present in the examination hall, but the
candidate has not attempted to take any assistance himself or given
assistance to any other candidate from the material being carried by him
he is entitled to punishment under Part-B of Rule 11, the prescribed,
punishment being cancellation of the entire examination.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner at the time he was found in possession
of a note which could be of help in the paper of Principles of Thermal
Engineering was re-appearing in two papers in which, he had failed to
clear in the third semester. Therefore, while exercising its power under
Rule 11B the respondent-Board could have cancelled the entire
examination of the third semester, i.e., both the papers of the third
semester in which he was re-appearing in December, 2012-January,
2013, but could not have cancelled examination for the fifth semester.
Cancelling the third semester papers in which the petitioner was re-
appearing as well as the fifth semester papers would amount to
cancellation of two examinations, not of one examination. The
punishment prescribed in the Rules, in my view, envisages cancellation
only of the examination in which the candidate is found using unfair
means and not all the other examination which the candidate may be
taking in the same year or in the same semester. Since the petitioner
was found using unfair means in a paper of third semester, his entire
examination for the remaining paper of the third semester, in which he
was appearing in December, 2012-January, 2013, which in this case
were two papers - one Principles of Thermal Engineering and second
Elements of Strength of Hydraulics & Material, could have been
cancelled.
7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order is
modified to the extent that the result of the petitioner stands cancelled in
respect of the third semester papers in which he was appearing in
December, 2012-January, 2013. The respondent-Board is directed to
declare the result of the petitioner in respect of the fifth term papers
within two (2) weeks from today.
The writ petition stands disposed of. No orders as to costs.
NOVEMBER 27, 2013 V.K. JAIN, J.
b'nesh
