Rani Nayak vs State Of Odisha & Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 13087 Ori

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

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


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

      Rani Nayak                                .           Petitioner
                                               Mr. N. Panda, Advocate

                                    -versus-

      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

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.

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 // 2 //

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.

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 // 3 //

well as the Invigilator with regard to adoption of malpractice nor

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

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

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.

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 // 4 //

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.

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, // 5 //

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.

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

the School authorities or the Centre Superintendent.

// 6 //

08. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further referred to the

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.

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 // 7 //

the present writ application for the release as prayed for in the

prayer of the writ application.

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 // 8 //

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

Board authorities.

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 // 9 //

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.

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.

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 // 10 //

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.

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 // 11 //

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.

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.

Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the allegation made by // 12 //

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.

16. The writ petition stands disposed of with the observations

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

(A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 19th of October, 2023/ Anil.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 25-Oct-2023 15:51:31