Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Ed Vs. K.S. Gandhi & Ors [1991] INSC 70 (12 March 1991)
Kasliwal, N.M. (J) Kasliwal, N.M. (J) Ramaswamy, K.
CITATION: 1991 SCALE (1)187
ACT:
Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Board Act, 1965/Maharashtra Secondary Board Regulation 1977: Sections 4, 18 and 23/Regulations 9(2) (XVIII) and 14--Marksheets found tampered with--Enquiry held--Tampering with knowledge of consent of candidates parents or guardians--Students alone to take part in the inquiry--Advocates, parents or guardians not allowed_validity of enquiry.
HEAD NOTE:
The appellant-Board conducted secondary examinations in the month of March 1990. During recounting of the marks obtained by the candidates it was found that moderators mark-sheets relating to 283 examinees, which included the 53 respondents, had been tampered with. The declaration of their results was withheld pending enquiry. Several writ petitions were filed against non-declaration of the results and the High Court directed the appellant to the expeditious action to declare the results.
The Board appointed seven enquiry officers to conduct the enquiry. Show cause notices were issued to the students informing them of the nature of tampering, the subjects in which the marks were found tampered with, the marks initially obtained and the marks increased due to tampering, and also indicated the proposed punishment, if in the enquiry it would be found that marks were tampered with the knowledge or connivance or at the instance of the candidates or parents or guardians. They were also informed that they would be at liberty to inspect the documents at the Divisional Board at Bombay; they were entitled to adduce documentary and oral evidence at the hearing; they would also be permitted to cross-examine the witnesses of the Board, if any; they would not be entitled to appear through an advocate, and the parents or guardians would be permitted to accompany the students at the time of enquiry, but they would not be entitled to take part in the enquiry.
All the candidates admitted that the marks initially awarded by 773 the examiners had been tampered with in the moderators mark- sheets; and due to tampering the marks were increased and the increase was to their advantage. However, they denied that either they or their parents or guardians were privy to the tampering.
The Enquiry Officers submitted their reports holding that the moderators mark-sheets had been fabricated and submitted the reports to the Board. The Standing Committee constituted in this regard considered the records and the reports and resolved to withhold, as a measure of punishment, the declaration of the results of their examinations and to debar the students to appear in the supplementary examination. The notification to that effect was published on 31.8.1990 and the report submitted to the High Court.
The High Court allowed the writ petitions. One Hon'ble Judge held that the Standing Committee was devoid of power, and because it did not obtain the approval of the Divisional Board, the impugned notification was without authority of law. On merits, the learned Judge held that the Standing Committee did not apply its mind in the proper perspective to the material facts, and therefore, the finding that tampering was done at the instance of the examinees/parents/guardians was perverse. The other Hon'ble Judge held that the examinees were not guilty of the mal- practices and their guilt had not been established.
Before this Court, it was contended on behalf of the respondents that the Act empowered that Divisional Board to deal with the use of unfair means at the final examination, and the Standing Committee was an alien body to the divisional Board; the students were minors and neither the parents nor anybody like an advocate was permitted to assist the students; answers to the questionnaire were extracted from the students to confess their guilt: no adequate opportunity was given to the students at the enquiry; the evidence without subjecting it to cross-examination was of no value; the Standing Committee did not apply its mind to the facts, nor recorded reasons in support of its conclusion that the examinee/parents/guardians were parties to the fabrication; the Board should establish the guilt of the examinees beyond all reasonable doubts; the standard of proof ought to be of a high degree akin to trial in a criminal case; the test of benefit to an examinee was preposterous; no evidence was placed on record, nor was it proved and hence the findings of the Standing Committee were clearly based on no evidence; the Enquiry Report contained only conclusions bereft of the statement of facts and reasons in support thereof; and the order ought to have been a speaking order preceded by a fair enquiry and the report must 774 be based on cogent evidence.
On behalf of the Board, it was inter alia contended that all the examinees admitted in answers to the questionnaire that tampering was done and it was to their advantage, and that in view of the admission, the need to examine any person from the concerned section was obviated.
Allowing the appeals, upholding the notification subject to modifications, this Court,
HELD:
(1) there is no manner of doubt that unfair means were used at the final Secondary Examination by fabricating the Moderators' mark-sheet of the examinees, in concerted manner, admittedly to benefit the students. [782C]
(2) The State Board is empowered to constitute the Divisional Boards and the Standing Committees. The State Board is also empowered to make regulations to conduct examinations and also to deal with the use of unfair means at the final examination conducted by the Board. The Divisional Board is empowered to conduct within its area the final examination on behalf of the State Board. The Divisional Board is also empowered to deal with the cases of unfair means according to the procedure laid down by the State Board. [783F-G]
(3) The Standing Committee is an executive arm of the Divisional Board for the efficient and expeditious functioning of the Board as adumberated under the Act itself. It is not a foreign body. When the Standing Education Committee takes the decision its decision is on behalf of the Divisional Board, and the decision of the Divisional Board in turn is on behalf of the State Board. [786E-F]
(4) On a fair and harmonious reading of the relevant provisions of the Act and the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board, Regulation, 1977 the Examination Committee of the Divisional Board is itself a statutory body which acted on behalf of the Divisional Board and is not a delegate of the Divisional Board. [786H] State of U.P. v. Batuk Deo Pati Tripathi & Anr., [1978] 2 S.C.C. 102; Kargram Panchayat Samiti & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors., [1987] 3 S.C.C. 82; Baradakanta Misra v. High Court of Orissa & Anr., [1976] Suppl. S.C.R. 561 and Tej Pal Singh (dead) through L.rs. v. State of U.P. & Anr., [1986] 3 S.C.R. 429, referred to. 775
(5) The Standing Committee is an integral part of the Divisional Board and its acts are for and no behalf of the Divisional Board. Accordingly, the Board must be deemed to have passed the impugned notification as per the scheme of the provisions of the Act and the Regulations. Therefore, the finding of the learned Judge that the Standing Committee had no power to take the impugned decision, etc. without approval of the Divisional Board is clearly illegal and cannot be sustained. [789B-C,F]
(6) While exercising the powers under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution, the High Court or this Court, is not sitting as a Court of Appeal on the findings of facts recorded by the Standing Committee (Domestic Enquiry Board) nor have power to evaluate the evidence as an appellate Court and to come to its own conclusions. If the conclusions reached by the Board can be fairly supported by the evidence on record then the High Court or this Court has to uphold the decision, though as appellate Court of facts, it may be inclined to take a different view. [789C]
(7) Fabrication cannot be done except to benefit the examinees. The fabricator had done it for reward in concert with outside agencies. Therefore, the inference from these facts drawn by the Standing Committee that the examinees/parents/guardians were responsible to fabricate the moderators' mark-sheets is based on evidence. [790G]
(8) It is not open to the High Court to evaluate the evidence to come to its own conclusions. Thereby the High Court has committed manifest error of law warranting interference by this Court. [791A]
(9) The Writ Court would not interfere with an order of educational institution. Therefore, what the writ Court needs to do is to find whether fair and reasonable opportunity has been given to the students in the given facts. [792F] D.M.K. Public School v. Regional Joint Director of Hyderabad, A.I.R. 1986 A.P. 204; G.B.S. Omkar v. Shri Venkateswara University, A.I.R. 1981 A.P. 163.
(10) Assistance of an Advocate to the delinquent at a domestic enquiry is not a part of the principles of natural justice. It depends on the nature of the inquiry and the peculiar circumstances and facts of a particular case.[792H] 776
(11) The regulations and the rules of enquiry specifically excluded the assistance of an advocate at the inquiry. Therefore, the omission to provide the assistance of a counsel at the inquiry is not violative of the principles of natural justice. [793A]
(12) The procedure adopted at the inquiry was fair and just and it was not vitiated by any procedural irregularity nor was violative of the principles of natural justice. The absence of opportunity to the parents or guardians, in this background, did not vitiate the legality or validity of the inquiry conducted or decision of the Committee. [793G-H]
(13) Unless the rule expressly or by necessary implications, excluded recording of reasons, it is implicit that the principles of natural justice or fair play does require recording of reasons as a part of fair procedure. In an administrative decision, its order/decision itself may not contain reasons. It may not be the requirement of the rules, but at the least, the record should disclose reasons.
It may not be like a judgement. But the reasons may be precise. [794F] Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor & Ors. [1973] 2 S.C.C. 836; Gurdial Singh Fiji v. State of Punjab & Ors. [1979 2 S.C.C. 368 and S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, J.T. 1990 (3) S.C. 630, referred to.
(14) The omnipresence and omniscience of the principle of natural justice acts as deterrence to arrive at arbitrary decision in flagrant infraction of fair play. But the applicability of the principles of natural justice is not a rule of thumb or a straight jacket formula as an abstract proposition of law. It depends on the facts of the case, nature of the inquiry and the effect of the order decision on the rights of the person and attendant circumstances. [795F]
(15) In the instant case, since the facts are admitted, the need to their reiteration was obviated and so only conclusions have been stated in the reports. The omission to record reasons is neither illegal, nor is violative of the principles of natural justice. [795H-796A]
Khardah Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, [1964] 3 S.C.R. 506; A.K. Roy etc. etc. v. Union of India & Ors. [1982] 1 S.C.C. 271; Pett v. Grehound Racing Association Ltd., [1968] 2 ALL Eng. Reports 545; Union of India v. H.C. Goel, [1964] 4 S.C.R. 718; M/s. Bareilly Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen & Ors. [1971] 2 S.C.C. 617; Shanti Prasad Jain v. The Director of Enforcement, [1963 3 S.C.R. 297; Merla Ramanna v. Nallaparaju & Ors., [1955] 2 S.C.R. 941; 777 Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India & Ors., [1986] 3 S.C.C. 229; Government Medical Store Depot, Karnal v. State of Haryana & Anr., [1986] 3 S.C.R. 450; M/s. Kesoram Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Gangadhar & Ors., [1964] 2 S.C.R. 809; State of Punjab v. Bhagat Ram, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 370; Gujarat Steel Tubesl Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha,, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 146; Union of India & Ors. v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, J.T. (1990) 4 S.C. 456; Vishwa Nath v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, [1983] 1 S.C.C. 215; Olga Tellis & Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, etc., [1985] 3 S.C.C. 545, referred to.
(16) Court should be slow to interfere with the decisions of domestic tribunals appointed by the education bodies like universities. [799F]
(17) In dealing with the validity of the impugned order passed by a University under Article 226 the High Court is not sitting in an appeal over the decision on this question.
Its jurisdiction is limited and though it is true that if the impugned order is not supported by any evidence the High Court may be justified to quash the order but the conclusion that the impugned order is not supported by any evidence must be reached after considering the question as to whether the probabilities and circumstantial evidence do not justify the said conclusion. The enquiry held by domestic tribunals in such cases must no doubt be fair and the students must be given adequate opportunity to defend themselves and holding such enquiries, the tribunal must follow the rules of natural justice. [799F-G] Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P. v. Sagleshar Persad & Ors., [1967] 3 S.C.R. 767 and Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha & Ors. [1970] 3 S.C.R. 963. referred to.
(18) The examination committee has jurisdiction to take decision in the matter of use of unfair means not only on direct evidence but also on probabilities and circumstantial evidence. There is no scope for importing the principles of criminal trial while considering the probative value of probabilities and circumstantial evidence. The Examination committed is not bound by technical rules of evidence and procedure as are applicable to Courts. [801E-F] Seth Gulabchand v. Seth Kudilal & Ors., [1966] 3 S.C.R. 623; Ghazanfer Rashid v. Board H.S. & I. Edn. U.P., A.I.R. 1970 Allahabad 209; Miller v. Minister of Pensions, [1947] All. E.L.R. 372; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chet Ram & Ors., [1989] 2 S.C.C. 425, referred to. 778
(19) There is an unmistakable subjective element in the evaluation of the degree of probability and the quantum of proof. Forensic probability must, in the last analysis, rest on the robust common sense and, ultimately, on the trained institutions of the Judge. [802D]
(20) Strict rules of the Evidence Act, and the standard of proof envisaged therein do not apply to departmental proceedings of domestic tribunals. It is open to the authorities to receive and place on record all the necessary, relevant, cogent and acceptable material facts though not proved strictly in conformity with the Evidence Act, the material must be germane and relevant to the facts in issue. In grave cases like forgery, fraud, conspiracy, misappropriation, etc. seldom direct evidence would be available. Only the circumstantial evidence would furnish the proof. Inference from the evidence and circumstances must be carefully distinguished from conjectures or speculation. [805D-E] State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal & Anr.,, [1988] 4 S.C.C. 302; Hanumant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, [1952] S.C.R. 1091; Reg. v. Hodge, [1838] 2 Law 227; Bank of India v. J.A.H. Chinoy, A.I.R. 1950 P.C. 90; Khwaja v. Secretary of State, [1983] 1 All E.L.R. 765 (H.L.); Sodhi Transport Co. & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Anr. etc., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 939; Bhandari v. Advocates Committee, [1956] A.E.L.R. 742 (P.C.); Glynn v. Keale University & Anr. [1971] 2 A.E.R. 89 (Ch.D.); In Re: An Advocate, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 245; Shri Krishan v. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 376 and Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil v. Dr. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi & Ors. & Vice Versa, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 458, referred to.
(21) The standard of proof is not beyond reasonable doubt "but" the preponderance of probabilities tending to draw and inference that the fact must be more probably.
Standard of proof cannot be put in a straight jacket formula. No mathematical formula could be laid on degree of proof. The probative value could be gauged on facts and circumstances in a given case. The Standard of proof is the same both in civil cases and domestic enquiries. [805H-806B]
(22) The conclusion reached by the Education Standing Committee that the fabrication was done at the instance of either the examinees or their parents or guardians is amply borne out from the record. The High Court over-stepped its supervisory jurisdiction and trenched into the arena of appreciation of evidence to arrive its own conclusion on the specious plea of satisfying 'conscience of the Court'. [806G]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 491-544 of 1991.
From the Judgement and Order dated 12.12.1990 of the Bombay High Court in W.P. Nos. 2646, 2659, 2651, 2649, 2657, 2664, 2648, 2647, 2666, 2658, 2662, 2663, 2667, 2665, 2691, 2693, 2694, 4091, 4098, 4155, 2743, 2789, 2791, 2790, 2740, 4290, 2824, 2858, 2848, 3052, 2863, 2848, 2844, 2843, 2832, 2852, 4846, 4844, 3312, 5101, 5102, 3313, 3207, 3064, 3005, 3335, 3188, 5123, 3514 and 4844 of 1990.
T.R. Andhyarujana, S.N. Wakharia, P.H. Parekh, D.Y. Chandrachud and Ms. Shalini Soni for the Appellant.
P. Chidambaram, Arun Jaitley, I.R. Joshi, M.N. Shroof, Ms. Indu Malhotra, Ms. Alka Mukhija, Harish N. Salve, Ms. Shireen Jain, J.P. Cama, Mukul Mudgal, Mrs. Urmila Sirur, Dileep Pillai, P. Kesava Pillai, Kailash Vasdev and Vimal Dave for the Respondents.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by K. RAMASWAMY, J. We have heard the learned counsel on either side and grant special leave to appeal in all the cases.
The quest for just result to save the precious academic years to the students while maintaining the unsullied examination process is the core problem which the facts have presented for solution.
The appeals arise from the common judgement of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 2646 of 1990 and batch. The appellant for short 'the Board' conducted secondary examinations in the month of March 1990, whereat the marks awarded, after the formalities of valuation by the examiners of the answer-sheets in each subject; the random counter check by the moderators and further recounting at the Board, Moderators' mark-sheets sent to Pune for feeding the computer to declare the results were found tampered with the appellant. Thereon, admittedly, it was found that moderators' mark-sheets relating to 283 examinees which include 53 respondents in these appeals were tampered, in many a case in more than 2 to 8 subjects, and in few cases in one subject. As a result, 214 examinees have improved their ranking, which would be in some cases exceptionally good.
The declaration of their results were 780 withheld pending further enquiry and the rest declared on June 30, 1990. Several writ petitions were filed in the High Court against non-declaration of the results and the High Court directed to take expeditious action to declare the results of the examination within the specified time. The Board appointed seven enquiry officers to conduct the enquiry. Show cause notices were issued to the students on July 30, 1990 informing them of the nature of tampering, the subjects in which the marks were found tampered with, the marks initially obtained and the marks increased due to tampering, and also indicated the proposed punishment, if in the enquiry it would be found that marks were tampered with the knowledge or connivance or at the instance of the candidates or parents or guardians. They were also informed that they would be at liberty to inspect the documents at the Divisional Board at Bombay. They were entitled to adduce documentary and oral evidence at the hearing. They will also be permitted to cross-examine the witnesses of the Board, if any. They would not be entitled to appear through an Advocate, but the parents or guardians would be permitted to accompany the students at the time of enquiry, but they are not entitled to take part in the enquiry. The candidates submitted their explanations denying the tampering and appeared before the Enquiry Officers on August 8, 9, 10, 20, 21 and 22, 1990. At the enquiry, each student inspected the record. A questionnaire was given to be filled in writing.
Every candidate was shown his answer book, marks awarded in the subject/subjects and the tampered marks in the moderators' mark sheets. All the candidates admitted that the marks initially awarded by the examiner were tampered in the moderators mark-sheets; due to tampering the marks were increased and the increase was to their advantage. However, they denied that either they or their parents or guardians were privy to the tampering. The Enquiry Officers submitted their reports holding that the moderators mark-sheets have been fabricated and submitted the reports to the Board. The Standing Committee constituted in this regard considered the records and the reports on August 29, 1990, discussed pros and cons and expressed certain doubts about the possibility of the candidates/parents/guardians committing fabrication.
They sought for and obtained legal opinion in that regard.
On August 30, 1990 the standing committe resolved to with hold, as a measure of punishment, the declaration of the results of their examinations and to debar the 283 students to appear in the supplementary examination to be held in October, 1990 and March, 1991. The notification was published on August 31, 1990 and submitted the report to the High Court. There-after the High Court considered the cases on merits. The learned Judges by separate but concurrent judgements allowed the writ petitions.
781 Sugla, J. held that the Standing Committee of the Divisional Board under the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board Act of 1965 for short 'the Act' was devoid of power. It did not obtain the approval of the Divisional Board, and therefore, the impugned notification was without authority of law. On merits also it was held that the Standing Committee did not apply its mind in the proper perspective to the material facts. Therefore, the finding that tampering was done at the instance of the examinees/parents/guardians is perverse. Bharucha, J. without going into the jurisdictional issue agreed with Sugla, J. and held that the preponderance of the probabilities would show that the examinees were not guilty of the malpractices. The guilt has not been established. The examinees might well be innocent. Accordingly, the impugned notification dated August 31, 1990 was quashed. Mandatory injunction was issued to Board to declare the results of 253 examinees within two weeks from the date of the judgement and marks were directed to be communicated to the examinees within a period of two weeks thereafter.
The admitted facts are that the mark-sheets of the examiners were not tampered. Only the moderators' mark- sheets were tampered. As per the procedure, after the marks were scrutinized at the State Board and found the marks tallied and to be correct, the moderators' mark-sheets were sent to the computer at Pune, obviously in sealed packets, for feeding the results. After the date of recounting the marks in the office of the State Board at Bombay and before the d ate of taking them to feed the computer, moderators' mark-sheets, were tampered. The individual students were put on notice of the marks they originally obtained and the tampered marks in the subject/subjects concerned. They were also given the opportunity to lead evidence on their behalf and if the witnesses were examined on behalf of the Board they would be permitted to cross-examine them. They inspected the records. The questionnaire given to all the examinees at the enquiry were before us at the hearing including the 53 respondents in the appeals. We have persued the questionnaire. It is clear from the answers given to the questionnaire that all the examinees admitted the marks they originally got and the tampered marks on the moderators' mark-sheets. They also admitted that the tampering was to their advantage. Everyone denied the complicity of either of the candidates or the parents or the guardians. Thus it is clear that at the enquiry there is no dispute that the moderators' mark-sheets were tampered, though the candidates, obviously and quite expectedly, denied their complicity in that regard. Due to tampering 214 would have been passed and 69 accelerated their ranking and percentage to seek admis- 782 sion into prestigious institutions. The racket of large scale tampering wading through 80,000 moderators' mark- sheets obviously was done by concerted action. It is clear that from large body of moderators' mark-sheets, it is not possible to pick the marks-sheets of the concerned examinee alone unless there is concerted and deliberate efforts, in conspiracy with some members of the staff entrusted with the duties in this regard, for illegal gratification. It is also not an innocent act of mere corrections as is sought to be made out by Sri Chidambaram, the learned counsel for the respondents. We have no manner of doubt that unfair means were used at the final Secondary Examination held in March 1990, by fabricating the Moderators' mark-sheets of 283 examinees, in a concerned manner, admittedly, to benefit the students concerned.
The first question, therefore, is whether the Standing Committee of the concerned Divisional Board has power under the Act and Regulations to enquire into the use of unfair means committed at the final examination conducted under the Act. Section 4 of the Act declares that the State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education is a body corporate. Section 18 enumerates the powers and duties of the State Board. Clause (t) of Sec. 18 empowers the Board to make regulations for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act. Clause (g) empowers the Board to give to the candidates certificates after passing final examination. Clause (m) empowers to recommend measures and to prescribe conditions of discipline. Clause (w) gives residuary power to do all such acts and things as many be necessary to carry out the purposes of the Act. Section 19 gives powers and entrust duties to the Divisional Board of each division. Clause (f) postulates, "to conduct in the area of its jurisdiction the final examination on behalf of the State Board." Clause (1) provides, "to deal with cases of use of unfair means according to the procedure laid down by the State Board." Section 23 provides that power of appointments of the Committees by the State Board. Sub- Section (2) thereof provides that:
"The State Board may appoint such other Committees as it thinks necessary for the efficient performance of its functions." Equally sub-section (3) of Sec. 23 empower thus:
"Each Divisional Board shall appoint Committees designated as follows:
(d) Examination Committee.
783 Sub-Section (5) states thus:
"The constitution of every committee appointed by the State Board or a Divisional Board, the term of office of its members and the duties and functions to be discharged by it shall be such as may be prescribed." Section 36 empowers the State Board to make regulations for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act. Sub-section (2) thereof states that:
"In particular and without prejudice to the generally of the foregoing power, such regulations may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:
(a) the constitution, powers and duties of the Committees. appointed under section 23;
........
(f) the arrangement for the conduct of final examinations by the Divisional Board and publication of results;
........
(n) any other matter which is to be or may be prescribed under this Act." Sub-section (3) provides:
"No regulation made under this section shall have effect until the same has been sanctioned by the State Government" Thus it is clear that the State Board is empowered to constitute the Divisional Boards and the Standing Committees. The State Board is also empowered to make regulations to conduct examinations and also to deal with the use of unfair means at the final examination conducted by the Board. The Divisional Board is empowered to conduct within its area the final examinations on behalf of the State Board. The Divisional Board is also empowered to deal with the cases of unfair means according to the procedure laid down by the State Board.
The State Board made regulations named as Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board Regulations 1977 which came into force with effect from July 11, 1977.
Regulation 9(2) (xviii) read thus:
784 "to lay down the procedure and specify the penalties to be followed by the Divisional Boards, in dealing with cases of use of unfair means by persons seeking admission to or appearing at the examinations conducted under the authority of the State Board." Under Regulations 14 the Standing Committee of the Divisional Board was to be constituted under sub-regulation (1) thereto. Sub-regulation (2) provides:
"Subject to the provisions of the Act and the Regulations, the Standing Committee shall have the following duties and functions, namely-- .....
(x) to deal with cases of use of unfair means by persons seeking admission to or appearing at the final examinations, according to the procedure laid down by the State Board." By a resolution passed at the meeting of the State Board held on October 26, 1985, Exhibit 'z' provides the procedure for enquiry. Clause 3(f) defines 'misconduct' as follows:
"Misconduct" shall mean any illegal or wrongful act or conduct which is alleged to have been resorted to by any candidate and/or any member of staff, at, for or in respect of the final examination and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, shall include.....
tampering with the documents issued by the Board or otherwise howsoever changing a candidate's results in any manner whatsoever and generally acting in such a manner so as to affect or impede the conduct of the final examinations and fair declaration of results thereof." Clause (4) empowers to conduct an enquiry either suo moto or on a complaint about any misconduct and the procedure in that regard so that the Chairman of the Divisional Board may entrust the enquiry into the alleged misconduct to any member or members of the Divisional Board other than the members of the Standing Committee. Clause (5) empowers to entrust the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer shall give a notice in writing to the candidate ...... setting forth the nature of the misconduct alleged against the candidate and call upon the candi- 785 date to show cause within the time specified therein. It also empowers to set out the punishment proposed to be imposed on a candidate. Clause 5(b) gives an opportunity to the candidates to inspect the relevant documents proposed to be relied upon at the enquiry. Clause 6 gives opportunity to the delinquent to submit an explanation; to produce his witnesses as well as documentary evidence and to be heard in person, if he/she so desires, but shall not be entitled to be represented by an Advocate or any other persons. The delinquent shall be bound to answer truthfully to all questions relevant to the subject of enquiry that may be put to him/her by the Enquiry Officer . Clause (10) provides that the concerned Enquiry Officer shall submit the report in writing including the findings and the proposed punishment. Clause 11 provides thus:
"The Standing Committee shall consider the report and decide the case as it may deem fit. The Standing Committee will take the decision in the same meeting." Clause (12) states thus:
"The Standing Committee shall not be bound to give detailed reasons in support of its order or decision but shall record its reasons if it disagrees with the findings of recommendations of the inquiry officer and under such circumstances the Standing Committee need not give hearing to the delinquent concerned." Other clauses are not relevant for the purpose of this case.
Hence omitted. The Board also in its meeting held on October 26, 1985 framed rules in Appendix 'A' providing under different heads the nature of the offence and the quantum of punishment, the relevant item 16 reads thus:
"Tampering with the Secondary/Higher Secondary School Certificate and/or statement of marks or their copies and any other documents issued by the Board." Cancellation of performance of the Examination and debarring the candidate for five more examinations and/or to lodge complaint by the concerned institution/Authority to Police Department.
Thus a conspectus of these relevant provisions of the Act, regulations 786 and resolutions clearly cover the entire field of operation regarding the use of unfair means at the final examinations specified the competent authorities and the procedure to deal with the same. The Divisional Board undoubtedly has been empowered under Sec. 19 of the Act to deal with the use of unfair means at the final examination. It may be made clear at this juncture that the Standing Committee consists of six members of the Divisional Board and none of them associated with the enquiry. Enquiry Officers are also the members of the Divisional Board. The regulations provide the procedure in this regard. It is undoubtedly true as contended by Shri Chidambaram, that the Act empowers the Divisional Board to deal with the use of unfair means at the final examination. But to give acceptance to the contention that the Standing Committee is an alien body to the Divisional Board is to do violence to the scheme of the Act and Regulations. It is seen that under the scheme of the Act and Regulations the State Board is empowered to constitute the Standing Committee. Equally the Divisional Board is empowered to constitute the committees which include the Examination Committee. The members thereof are only members of the Divisional Board. Equally the Inquiry Officers are also the members of the Divisional Board other than the members of the Education Standing Committee. The Standing Committee is an executive arm of the Divisional Board for the efficient and expeditious functioning of the Board as adumbrated under the Act itself. It is not a foreign body.
Therefore, when the Divisional Board is acting in conducting the examinations and dealing with the use of unfair means at the final Examination, it is acting on behalf of the State Board as its agent. When the enquiry was conducted by some members and the Standing Committee was taking the decision thereon, it is acting on behalf of the Divisional Board.
There is no dichotomy but distribution of the functions.
Therefore, when the Standing Education Committee takes the decision its decision is on behalf of the Divisional Board to which they are members and the decision of the Divisional Board to which they are members and the decision of the Divisional Board in turn is on behalf of the State Board.
This is the integral scheme woven by the Act and Regulations. Thus under the scheme of the Act, for the efficient and expeditious function of the concerned Boards;
implementation of the provisions of the Act, and to prevent use of unfair means at the final examination including tampering the result of the examination, the Standing committee is clearly within its power to take final decision. On a fair and harmonious reading of the relevant provisions and given their due scope and operational efficiency, we are of the considered view that the Examination Standing Committee of the Divisional Board itself a statutory body acted on behalf of the Divisional Board and is not a delegate of the Divisional Board.
787 In State of U.P. v. (Batuk Deo Pati Tripathi & Anr.,) [1978] 2 SCC 102 the respondent was appointed as a Munsif in the State Judicial Service and was later promoted as a District Judge. The Administrative Committee of the High Court reviewed the service and the Committee recommended to the State Government and communicated to all the Judges of the recommendation to compulsarily retire the respondent from service. The Govt. accordingly retired the respondent compulsarily which was challenged in a writ petition. A Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that the District Judge cannot be retired from service on the opinion formed by the Administrative Committee and all the Judges should have considered and made recommendation. Accordingly, the order was set aside. On appeal, the Constitution Bench of this Court held that Art. 235 of the Constitution provides control over the District Judges and the Court subordinate thereto shall be vested in the High Court. It is open to the High Court to make rules to exercise the power of control feasible, convenient and effective. Accordingly the High Court regulated the manner of appointment of a Committee to screen the service record. Thus, the rules framed prescribed the manner in which the power has to be exercised. Truely, it is regulatory in character and the powers were exercised by the Committee and recommended to the State Govt. to compulsarily retire the respondent and it amounts to taking a decision on behalf of the High Court. In (Khargram Panchayat Samiti v. State of West Bengal & Ors.,) [1987] 3 SCC 82 at p. 84 the facts were that the cattle fairs run by the two rival organisations would be held on specified different dates which were impugned in the jurisdiction to pass such a resolution. The High Court held that the Samiti was vested with power to grant licence to hold the fair under Sec. 117 of West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. In the absence of any rules framed in that regard it had no power to specify dates on which such Hat or fair shall be held.
While reversing the High Court's judgement, this Court held that the general administration of the local area vested in the Samiti which had power to grant licences to held fair or hat under Sec. 117 of the Act. Necessarily it carries with it the power to supervise, control and manage such a hat or fair within its territorial jurisdiction. The conferment of the power to grant a licence for holding of a hat or a fair includes the power to make incidental or consequential order for specification of a date on which such a Hat or fair shall be held. Accordingly, the resolution of the Samiti was upheld. In (Baradakanta Misra,) v. (High Court of Orissa & Anr.,) [1976]B Suppl. SCR 561 relied on by Sri Chidambaram, the facts were that then appel 788 lant while acting as a District Judge, an enquiry into certain charges was held against him, and was reduced to Addl. District Magistrate (Judicial). He refused to join the duty. Fresh proceedings were initiated against him and after enquiry the High Court dismissed him on the ground that he was convicted on a charge of a criminal attempt. An appeal was filed to the Governor and a Writ petition followed thereafter filed in the High Court were dismissed, while allowing the appeal filed under Article 136. The scope of the words "control" and "deal" used in Article 235 were interpreted at page 576 P&G and held that the word 'control' includes something in addition to the disciplinary jurisdiction. The control is with regard to conduct and discipline of the District Judges and Subordinate Courts and includes right to appeal against the order of the High Court in accordance with the condition or service includes an order passed thereon. The word 'deal' also includes the control over disciplinary and not mere administrative jurisdiction. The control which is vested in the High Court is complete control subject only to the power of the Governor in the matter of appointment including initial posting and promotion of the District Judge and dismissal, removal and reduction in rank of the District Judges within the exercise of the control vested in the High Court. The High Court can hold enquiries, impose punishments other than dismissal or removal subject, however, to the conditions of service to a right of appeal, if granted by the conditions of service, and to the giving of an opportunity of showing cause as required by Clause (2) of Art. 311 unless such an opportunity is dispensed with by the Governor acting under the provisos (b) and (c) to that clause. The High Court alone could make enquiries into disciplinary conduct. It was held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to dismiss the District Judge. Accordingly it was quashed. That ratio has no application to the facts in this case since the Act, Regulations and the Resolutions empowered the Divisional Board and its Standing Committee to deal with use of unfair means at final examinations including fabrication of documents issued by the Board as an integral part of the power of the Divisional Board. Similarly, the ratio in (Taj Pal Singh (dead) through Lrs) v. State of U.P. & Anr., [1986] 3 SCR 429 also is inapplicable to the facts of this case. In that case, the facts were that while the appellant was working as the District and Sessions Judge, the Stage Govt. moved the High Court to his premature retirement. The Administrative Judge agreed with Government's proposal to retire the appellant after giving him three months' notice, the Governor passed the impugned order compulsorily retiring the appellant. Three days thereafter the Administrative Committee had approved the opinion of the Administrative Judge which was transmitted to the Government.
789 Assailing the action of the Government the writ petition was filed which was dismissed by the High Court, but on appeal this Court held that the Administrative Judge was not competent to recommend to the Governor or compulsorily retire the District and Sessions Judge and the order of the Government made pursuant thereto was declared illegal. This Court reiterated that the High Court has power under Art.
235 to make rules for its administrative convenience, but since the impugned action was not in pursuance of that rule, the action was not upheld. That ratio also renders little assistance to the respondents for the reasons that the Standing Committee, as stated earlier is an integral part of while exercising the powers, under Art. 226 or Art. 136 of the Constitution, by the High Court or of this Court, are not sitting Committees (domestic enquiry body), nor have power to evaluate the evidence as an appellate Court and to come to its own conclusions. If the conclusions reached by the Board can be fairly supported by the evidence on record then the High Court or this Court has to uphold the decision, though as appellate Court of facts, may be inclined to take different view.
The contention of M/s. Chidambaram, Jaitley, Salve and Cama, the learned counsel for the students, is that the students were minors; neither the parents nor anybody like an Advocate was permitted to assist the students. Answers to the questionnaire were extracted from the students to confess their guilt. No adequate opportunity was given to the students at the enquiry. No-one on behalf of the Board acquainted with the Divisional Board. Accordingly the Board must be deemed to have passed the impugned notification as per the scheme of the provisions of the Act and the Regulations. Therefore, the finding of the learned Judge Sugla, J. that the Standing Committee had no power to take the impugned decision, etc. without approval of the Divisional Board is clearly illegal and cannot be sustained.
The question then is whether the candidates or their parents or guardians are privy to the fraudulent fabrication. Since we are informed that investigation in this regard by the Police is in progress, we refrain to express any final opinion in this regard. Suffice to state that the records clearly establish that there was a fraudulent fabrication of the moderators' marks-sheets of 283 candidates including the respondents herein. The question, therefore, emerges whether the conclusion reached by the Standing Committee that the fabrication was done at the behest of either the candidate or the parents or the guardians to 790 their advantage is based on records. We remind ourselves that the facts was examined to explain as to how the moderators' sheets were dealt with after the board screened the marks, but before taking to Pune to feed the computer, nor an opportunity was given to cross examine them. The evidence without subjecting it to cross-examination is of no value. Enquiry report is not a report in the eye of law. It does not contain any statement of facts, nor reasons recorded. It merely records conclusions. When seven members were appointed it is not expected that all of them would submit uniform stereo typed reports to the Standing Committee. The Standing Committee did not apply its mind to the facts, nor recorded reasons in support of its conclusions that the examinees/parents/guardians were parties to the fabrication and the fabrication was done at their behest. Sri Chidambaram further contended that the Board should establish the guilt of the examinees beyond all reasonable doubts. Shri Jaitley, Sri Cama and Sri Salve though did not support Sri Chidambaram that the standard of proof must be beyond all reasonable doubt, they argued that Standard of proof must be a high degree akin to trial in a criminal case. The Board did not discharge its duty, on the other hand the Board had presumed that fabrication was done for the benefit of the examinees. The test of benefit to an examinee is preposterous. There is no presumption that the fabrication was done at the behest of either the examinees/parents/guardians. It must be established by the Board as of fact that the examinees/parents/guardians were responsible for fabricating the Moderators' mark-sheets.
Thus no evidence was placed on record, nor wait proved;
that, therefore, the findings of the Standing Committee are clearly based on no evidence. The learned Judges of the High Court were justified in reaching the conclusion that the Board had not established that the fabrication was done at the behest of the examinees/parents/guardians. This was resisted by Sri T.R. Andhyarujana, learned counsel appearing for the Board. It was his contention that all the examinees admitted in answers to the questionnaire that tampering was done and it was to their advantage. In view of the admission, the need to examine any person from the concerned section was obviated. Fabrication cannot be done except to benefit the examinees. The fabricator had done it for reward in concert with outside agencies. Therefore, the inference from these facts drawn by the Standing Committee that the examinees/parents/guardians were responsible to fabricate the moderators' marks-sheets is based on evidence. Proper enquiry was conducted giving reasonable opportunity to the candidates. Show cause notices set out the material facts on which the Board intends to place reliance. The examinees submitted their explanations and also answered the questionnaire. On consideration 791 thereof the Standing Committee had reached the conclusions of the guilt of the examinees/parents/guardians. This is based on record. It is not open to High Court to evaluate the evidence to come to its own conclusions. Thereby the High Court has committed manifest error of law warranting interference by this Court.
Art. 51A of the Constitution enjoins every citizen, as a fundamental duty, to promote harmony and spirit of common brotherhood among the people, to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform; to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement. Art.
29(2) declares education as fundamental right. The native endowments of men are by no means equal. Education means a process which provides for intellectual, moral and physical development of a child for good character formation;
mobility to social status; an opportunity to scale equality and a powerful instrument to bring about social change including necessary awakening among the people. According to Bharat Ratna Dr. Ambedkar education is the means to promote intellectual, moral and social democracy. In D.M.K. Public School v. (Regional Joint Director of Hyderabad,) AIR 1936 (A.P.) 204 one of us (K. Ramaswamy, J.) held that education lays foundation of good citizenship and a principal instrument to awaken the child to intellectual and cultural pursuits and values in preparing the child for latter professional training and help him to adjust to the environment.
In nation building activities, education is a powerful level to uplift the poor. Education should, therefore, be co-related to the social, political or economic needs of our developing nation fostering secular values breaking the barriers of casteism, linguism, religious bigotry and it should act as an instrument of social change. Education system should be so devised as to meet these realities of life. Education nourishes intellectual advancement to develop dignity of person without which there is neither intellectual excellence nor pursuit of happiness. Education thus kindles its flames for pursuit of excellence, enables and ennobles the young mind to sharpen his/her intellect more with reasoning than blind faith to reach intellectual heights and inculcate in him or her to strive for social equality and dignity of person.
Teacher occupies pride of place next below the parents as he/she imparts education and disciple the students. On receiving salary from public exchequer he/she owes social responsibility and accountability 792 to disciple the students by total dedication and sincere teaching. It would appear that their fallen standards and rectitude is also a contributory factor to the indiscipline among the students. The students, too, instead of devoting his or her precious time to character building and to pursue courses of study studiously and diligently in the pursuit of knowledge and excellence, dissipate their precious time and many indulge in mass copying at the final examinations or use unfair means. Some even do not hesitate to threaten the dutiful invigilators with dir consequences.
In G.B.S. Omkar v. Shri Venkateswara University, AIR 1981 A.P. 163 P.A. Choudhary, J., in the context of finding the student guilty of mal-practices held, that "I regretfully note that standards of discipline and education presently detaining in many Universities in our country leave a good lot to be desired. They are low and falling lower every day. the fall-out of these low standards of university education on liberal profession is proving to be nearly catastrophic ..... It is no wonder that some of our Universities have ceased to be centres of learning and have grown into battle-fields for warring Caste groups." It was held that what the Writ Court under Art. 226 need to consider is whether fair opportunity had been given to a petitioner and he had been treated squarely and whether the student had a fair deal with the University. Once the procedural formalities are complied with, in the absence of any allegation of mala fide, it must be presumed that the University had acted bona fide and honestly so long as there is the evidence justifying the inference arrived at without there being a serious procedural irregularity. The Writ Court would not interfere with an order of educational institution. Therefore, what the writ court needs to do is to find whether fair and reasonable opportunity has been given to the students in the given facts.
From this background the question emerges whether the impugned notification is vitiated by any procedural irregularity under the provisions of the Act, regulations and the Resolutions referred hereinbefore or violative of the principles of natural justice.
The students involved at the examination of secondary education are by and large minors but that by itself would not be a factor to hold that the students were unfairly treated at an inquiry conducted during the domestic inquiry.
Assistance of an Advocate to the delinquent at a domestic enquiry is not a part of the principles of natural justice.
It depends on the nature of the inquiry and the peculiar circumstances and facts of a particular case. The regulations and the rules of enquiry 793 specifically excluded the assistance of an Advocate at the inquiry. Therefore, the omission to provide the assistance of a counsel at the inquiry is not violative of the principles of natural justice. The show cause notice furnished wealth of material particulars on which the tampering was alleged to be founded and given the opportunity to each student to submit the explanation and also to adduce evidence, oral or documentary at the inquiry.
Each student submitted the explanation denying the allegation. At the inquiry the questionnaire in the proforma was given to each student. It is undoubted that the allegation of fabrication was stated to have been done at the behest of either the student/parents or guardians and the parents or guardians were not permitted to participate in the inquiry. Inspection of documents was given. Their answer-sheets and marks secured were perused by the students and were asked to testify whether the answer-books belongs to him or her and to identify the marks awarded by the examiner to each answer to the question and the total marks awarded. It was also asked to verify and state whether the moderator's mark-sheets were tampered in the concerned subject or subjects as the case may be. The student could easily identify and in fact identified his or her answer books and verified the marks awarded and answered positively that the marks were fabricated in the moderators' mark-sheets. The questionnaire was also given to indicate their educational background in the previous school years and also the marks they expected at the final examinations.
The need of the assistance of the parents/guardians was thus absolutely nil. Further question in the proforma was to ascertain from the students, due to tampering, whether or not the marks were increased to his or her advantage. It could be answered by a mere look at the marks. No outside assistance is needed. All the students have admitted that the answer books belong to them. They also admitted the marks initially awarded by the examiner or added or subtracted, if any, by the moderators. They also admitted that the fabrication in the moderators' mark-sheets in the subject or subjects and the marks were increased to their advantage. They also denied the complicity of him or her or of parents or guardians. It is not the case of the respondents that they were coerced to answer the questions in a particular manner. It is obvious from the record that they had prior consultations with the counsel. Thus it could be seen that the procedure adopted at the inquiry is fair and just and it is not vitiated by any procedural irregularity nor is violative of the principles of natural justice. The absence of opportunity to the parents or guardians, in this background does not vitiate the legality or validity of the inquiry conducted or decision of the Committee.
794 It is true, as contended by Sri Chidambaram and reiterated by other counsel, that the Inquiry Report does contain only conclusions bereft of the statement of facts and reasons in support thereof. As pointed out by Sri Cama that in some of the reports, the body was written in the hand writing of one or other person and it was signed by the Inquiry Officer concerned. But when an inquiry against 283 students was conducted, it is not expected that each Inquiry Officer alone should write the report under his/her hand. In the circumstances the Inquiry Officer obviously had the assistance of the staff in the office to write the body or the conclusions to his/her dictation and he/she signed the report. The reports cannot be jettisoned on the ground that the Inquiry Officer mechanically drew the conclusions in the reports without applying his/her mind to the facts. The Enquiry Reports are not, therefore, bad in law.
In (Union of India) v. (Mohan Lal Capoor & Ors.,) [1973] 2 SCC 836 this court speaking through M.M. Beg, J., for a Bench of two Judges held in paragraph 28 at page 854 that the reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based to the actual conclusions. They disclose how mind is applied to the subject matter for a decision, whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They would reveal nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached..
This view was reiterated in (Gurdial Singh Fijji) v. (State of Punjab & Ors.,) [1979] 2 SCC 368. Those two cases relied on by Sri Chidambaram, the rules/regulations required recording of reasons in support of the conclusion as mandatory.
Unless the rule expressly or by necessary implications, excludes recording of reasons, it is implicit that the principles of natural justice or fair play does require recording of reasons as a part of fair procedure. In an administrative decision, its order/decision itself may not contain reasons. It may not be the requirement of the rules, but at the least, the record should disclose reasons. It may not be like a judgement. But the reasons may be precise. In S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, J.T. 1990 (3) SC 630 the Constitution Bench of this Court surveyed the entire case law in this regard, and we need not burden the Judgement to reiterate them once over and at page 643 in paragraph 40 it held that except in cases where the requirement has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication, an administrative authority exercising judicial or quasi- judicial functions is required to record the reasons for its decision. In para 36 it was further held that recording of reasons excludes changes of arbitrariness and ensure a degree of fairness in the process of decision making. The said principle would apply 795 equally to all decisions and its applications cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. "It is not required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a Court of law." The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given the consideration to the points in controversy. The need for recording reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage.
The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons. If the appellate or revisional authority disagrees, the reasons must be contained in the order under challenge. Thus it is settled law that the reasons are harbinger between the mind of the maker of the order to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. It also exclude the chances to reach arbitrary, whimsical or capricious decision or conclusion. The reasons assure an inbuilt support to the conclusion/decision reached. The order when it effects the right of a citizen or a person, irrespective of the fact, whether it is quasi-judicial or administrative fair play requires recording of germane and relevant precise reasons. The recording of reasons is also an assurance that the authority concerned consciously applied its mind to the facts on record. It also aids the appellate or revisional authority or the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 or the Appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 136 to see whether the authority concerned acted fairly and justly to meet out justice to the aggrieved person.
From this perspective, the question is whether omission to record reasons vitiates the impugned order or is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The omnipresence and omniscience of the principle of natural justice acts as deterrence to arrive at arbitrary decision in flagrant infraction of fair play. But the applicability of the principles of natural justice is not a rule of thumb or a straight jacket formula as an abstract proposition of law. It depends on the facts of the case nature of the inquiry and the effect of the order/decision on the rights of the person and attendant circumstances. It is seen from the record and is not disputed, that all the students admitted, the factum of fabrication and it was to his or her advantage and that the subject/subjects in which fabrication was committed belong to him or her. In view of these admissions the Inquiry Officer, obviously did not find it expedient to reterate all the admissions made. If the facts are disputed, necessarily the authority or the Inquiry Officer, on consideration of the material on record, should record reasons in support of the conclusion reached. Since the facts are admitted, the need to their 796 reiteration was obviated and so only conclusions have been stated in the reports. The omission to record reasons in the present case is neither illegal, nor is violative of the principles of natural justice. Whether the conclusions are proved or not is yet another question and would need detailed consideration.
In Khardah Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, [1964] 3 SCR 506 at p. 514 the ratio that the Enquiry Report must contain reasons in support of the findings drawn neatly and briefly is of no assistance for the aforestated facts of this case.
The ratio in A.K. Roy, etc. etc. v. Union of India & Ors., [1982] 1 SCC 271 that the aid of friend could be taken to assist the detenu and in Pett v. Grehound Racing Association Ltd., [1968] 2 All Eng. Reports 545 the right to appoint an Agent to represent the case of the petitioner are also of no assistance since the rule expressly excluded such a representation. The ratio in Union of India v. H.C. Goel, [1964] 4 SCR 718 also does not help the respondents for the reason that it is not a case of no evidence and the conclusions were reached on the basis of the admission made by the respondents. The ration in M/s. Bareilly Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen & Ors., [1971] 2 SCC 617 also does not apply to the facts of this case for the reasons that the need to examine the witnesses on behalf of the Board was obviated by the admissions made by the examinees.
The ratio in Shanti Prasad Jain v. The Director of Enforcement, [1963] 3 SCR 297 is equally of no assistance to the respondents since the contention that the circumstances under which the fabrication of the moderators' mark-sheets came to be made is not a relevant fact. Therefore, there is no need to examine the concerned officials in the State Board to explain as to how and who d
