Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33582 of 2018 Petitioner :- C/M Arya Inter College And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Shri Ashok Khare (Senior Advocate) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the decision of the Examination Committee of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Allahabad dated 21.6.2018 communicated to the petitioner Institution by communication dated 31.7.2018. By the said decision, the Examination Committee of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Allahabad has decided to debar the Central Superintendent and Invigilators from performing any remunerative work for a period of three years and the Institution from being designating as an Examination Centre, also for a period of three years.
The order has been challenged primarily on the ground that the same has been passed without taking into consideration the explanation submitted by the petitioner Institution. It is urged that there was no charge of use of unfair means or cheating during examinations nor the examination held at the Institution was cancelled.
Learned standing counsel was granted time on 4.10.2018 to ascertain whether there is any separate order taking into consideration the explanation of the petitioner Institution apart from the conclusion which is recorded in the impugned communication.
On matter being taken up, learned standing counsel, on instructions, states that there is no separate order.
The petitioners were issued a show cause notice based on an inspection made at the petitioner Institution on 22.2.2018 during second shift. The irregularities found at the time of inspection relates to non-maintenance of the registers/documents in proper format, absence of signatures of concerned person on various forms and certain infrastructural defects.
The petitioner Institution had submitted a detailed reply in response to the show cause notice on 17.4.2018 pointing out how the alleged irregularities/deficiencies does not exist. In the said reply, the petitioners' Institution had also furnished explanation stating that on certain registers and documents, signatures were not required, as was alleged in the inspection report. It was also pointed out that there was no deficiency in the infrastructure.
The Examination Committee in its meeting dated 21.6.2018 took the impugned decision observing that the explanation furnished by the petitioners has not been found to be satisfactory.
In the opinion of the Court, the aforesaid conclusion, without recording adequate reasons is not sustainable in law. The charges against the petitioner Institution did not relate to cheating, but to certain technical defects in maintenance of documents. Once the petitioner Institution has furnished an explanation, it was incumbent upon the Examination Committee to have dealt with the objection. By merely saying that the explanation furnished is not satisfactory, the Examination Committee cannot be said to have applied its mind to the explanation furnished by the petitioner Institution. Consequently, the impugned decision of the Examination Committee, as contained in communication dated 31.7.2018, is hereby quashed. It shall be open to the Examination Committee to pass a fresh speaking order, after considering the explanation furnished by the petitioners.
The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 26.10.2018 AM/-