Orissa High Court
Unknown vs Central Board Of Secondary Education ... on 15 September, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) Nos.19941, 15942, 16032, 16041, 16045,
16197, 16697, 16970, 16972, 17033, 17036, 17055,
17189, 17272 & 17569 of 2025.
In the matter of applications under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India
Oum Sai Avatar
(In W.P.(C) No.19941 of 2025)
Amiya Kumar Sahu & others
(In W.P.(C) No.15942 of 2025)
Akash Chhatar & others
(In W.P.(C) No.16032 of 2025)
Nihareeka Barik & others
(In W.P.(C) No.16041 of 2025)
Subham Sahu & others
(In W.P.(C) No.16045 of 2025)
Arya Adyasha Sahu
(In W.P.(C) No.16197 of 2025)
Barsha Ranee Behera
(In W.P.(C) No.16697 of 2025)
Shruti Padhan
(In W.P.(C) No.16970 of 2025)
Baby Padhan
(In W.P.(C) No.16972 of 2025)
Bhishma Benia
(In W.P.(C) No.17033 of 2025)
Arpita Priyadarsini Panda
(In W.P.(C) No.17036 of 2025)
Page 1 of 9
Biswajit Thakur
(In W.P.(C) No.17055 of 2025)
Archana Sahu
(In W.P.(C) No.17189 of 2025)
Piyush Agrawal
(In W.P.(C) No.17272 of 2025)
Sangita Gingira
(In W.P.(C) No.17569 of 2025) .... Petitioners
-Versus-
Central Board of Secondary Education .... Opp. Parties
& others
Advocates appeared in these cases:
For Petitioners : M/s. K.K. Swain, K. Swain,
J.R. Khuntia, P.N. Mohanty, U.R.
Chhotray & S.C.D. Dash,
Advocates in W.P.(C) Nos.19941,
16697, 16970, 16972, 17033, 17036,
17055, 17189, 17272 & 17569 of 2025
Mr. S.S. Das, Sr. Advocate
M/s. S.S. Pradhan, S.S. Roul,
S.K. Mishra & B.P. Pradhan,
Advocates in W.P.(C) Nos.15942,
16032, 16041, 16045 & 16197 of 2025
For Opp. Parties : Mr. T.N. Pattanayak,
Advocate for CBSE
Page 2 of 9
Mr. S. Jena, Advocate for OP No.3 in
W.P.(C) Nos.15942, 16032 & 16045 of
2025.
Mr. B.P. Pradhan, Advocate for OP
No.3 in W.P.(C) No.17272 of 2025.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
JUDGMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing & judgment : 15.09.2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD,J.
All these petitioners appeared in the Board of Secondary
School Certificate Examination- 2025 (Class-XII) conducted by the
Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), a registered
Society, which regulates & supervises inter alia the conduct of such
examinations periodically & on regular basis. Results of
petitioners have not been announced on the ground that they had
adopted "UNFAIR MEANS" (UFM), although results of other
candidates have been webhosted on 26.05.2025. Aggrieved
thereby, they are complaining before the Writ Court.
2. Submissions made on behalf of petitioners:
(i) The action of the Board in treating the case of petitioners as
of UFM, being unilateral, is contrary to law, facts & evidence borne
out by record. There is a gross violation of principles of natural
justice to the prejudice of petitioners.
(ii) There is absolutely no reason or rhyme to attribute the
stigma of UFM and thereby interdict the movement of petitioners
to the next level, and that the action has caused a great loss of
valuable academic period.
(iii) The CBSE has promulgated Examination Bye-Laws, 1995, as
amended till January, 2013; Bye-Law 36 prescribes the procedure
for treating the cases of malpractice & of unfair means, which has
been breached to the core, sans justification.
(iv) Even if petitioners are failed in one of the six subjects, they
are entitled to be promoted to the next higher level, the prescribed
minimum passing of papers being five, and this aspect of the
matter has not been considered in the impugned orders.
3. Submissions on behalf of CBSE:
(i) Regardless of the text of the impugned orders, the factual
back-ground of all these cases is one of mass-copying/malpractice
and the authorities, having looked into all aspects of the matter,
have taken the impugned decisions, which cannot be faltered.
(ii) The Schools concerned having not preserved CC Camera
footage fully, the authorities had a great disadvantage and that by
employing their expertise in the matter, the impugned decisions
have been taken and therefore, this Court should readily grant
interference in a matter which is essentially academic.
(iii) The question of following principles of natural justice in
matters like this is nearly impossible, regard being had to nature of
the examination and numerical strength of the examinees. Since
matter was very serious, Principals of two Schools have been
suspended in contemplation of disciplinary inquiry.
(iv) The provisions of Bye-Law 36 are only in the nature of
guidelines and case of the petitioners apparently falling in the
exceptional circumstances, adherence to this Bye-Law has been
dispensed with in the special & peculiar fact matrix.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the petition papers and also having adverted to rulings
cited at the Bar, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the
matter as under and for the following reasons:-
4.1. The CBSE Bye-Laws make abundant provision and prescribe
a due procedure for treating cases of Unfair Means/Malpractice, is
not disputed. When there is mass-copying or other malpractice,
the provisions of Bye-Law 36 come into play. This Bye-Law
prescribes the penalty also to the errant students. They employ
mandatory terminology. Therefore, learned advocates appearing
for the petitioners are right in telling that the breach of these Bye-
Laws would render the impugned decisions vulnerable for
challenge. The contention of CBSE panel counsel, that every rule
has an exception, has not been demonstrated from the text or
context of Bye-Laws. Unless law indicates the exception, it is
ordinarily impermissible to contend that the case falls in the class
of exception. After all, an exception to the rule does not fall from
the sky. It should arise at least by a reasonable interpretative
process and in this case it has not arisen even by inference.
4.2. Learned advocates appearing for the petitioners are more
than justified in submitting that there is absolutely no justification
whatsoever for not following the principles of natural justice at
least as the minimum requirement of fair play. On what basis the
conclusion of culpability is arrived at, is also not forthcoming. It is
true, as contended by learned panel counsel that the principles of
natural justice are not an unruly horse that would run amok. But
what heavens were falling down for taking the impugned
decisions as a knee jerk reaction, remains inscrutable, despite
turning the pages of petition papers. It hardly needs to be
reiterated that the principles of natural justice are treated as a part
of Articles 14 & 21. For one who contends for exclusion of these
principles, the burden is heavy and that has not been discharged in
this case. When God himself is said to have given an opportunity
of hearing to Adam & Eve for consuming the proscribed fruit in
the Eden Garden, mortals like OPs could not have unilaterally
decided something stigmatic not only to the young minds like the
petitioners but to the agony of their parents.
4.3. The above being said, now what relief needs to be accorded
to the petitioners, is a matter of pragmatism: Counsel for the
petitioners seek invalidation of the impugned orders coupled with
a direction for announcement of results, as if nothing has not
happened. This is on the one extreme. The panel counsel
appearing for the CBSE seeks dismissal of these petitions insisting
upon the petitioners to write the ensuing examination,
supplementary or otherwise afresh. This is on the other extreme.
Justice of the case warrants the pendulum to stop somewhere in
between. A direction for fresh inquiry would strike the golden
balance between these two extremes for the purpose of
maintaining purity in the examination process and justice to the
students. This view gains support from the Apex Court decisions
in Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India, (2024) 2 SCC L&S) 344 &
Rajesh Kumar v. The Institute of Engineers (India), 1997 SUPP. (3)
SCR 90.
4.4. This Court deprecates the act of OP-Schools in not
preserving the CC Camera footage of the examination process for a
minimum period of two months following their completion,
despite CBSE Circulars making it mandatory. No plausible
explanation is offered for not complying with the same. In serious
lapses of the kind, mere suspension followed by disciplinary
inquiry will be highly insufficient. There is a lot of scope for
arguing that without the complicity of School officials, this lapse or
the subject episode could not happen. This Court expresses its
anguish that no criminal case is registered against the errant. More
is not necessary to specify and less is insufficient to leave the
things unsaid.
In the above circumstances, these petitions are allowed in
part. A Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned decisions
whereby petitioners are stigmatized as the candidates of "UFM".
A Writ of Mandamus issues to the CBSE to hold a fresh inquiry in
terms of Bye-Law 36 of the subject Bye-Laws after giving
reasonable opportunity of participation to the petitioners. The
inquiry should be accomplished and further action, pursuant to its
result, be completed within an outer limit of two (2) weeks. All
contentions of the parties are kept open.
No costs.
Web copy of judgment to be acted upon by all concerned.
Dixit Krishna Shripad,
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 15th day of September, 2025/Basu
Designation: ASST. REGISTRAR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
Date: 16-Sep-2025 19:32:48
