The appellant, being aggrieved by the non-allotment of an examination centre to its institution for the 2014 examination to be conducted by the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board'), filed a writ petition which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the order dated 22 January 2014. This judgment has been impugned in this special appeal.
2. The State Government has issued a Government Order dated 9 October 2013 relating to allotment of examination centres for the Board examination. The Government Order stipulates that for the academic year 2014, those institutions which had conducted the examination of the Board in a peaceful manner would ordinarily be made examination centres. The effect of the Government Order dated 9 October 2013 was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in a judgment in Madhyamik Vidhyalaya Prabhandhan Samiti Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.1. The Division Bench construing the Government Order, held as follows:
"... First and foremost, a policy by itself does not give rise to any enforceable right. Secondly, the Government has justifiable reasons for issuing the modification. The mere fact that the examination has been conducted in a peaceful manner at a particular centre may be outweighed by other countervailing circumstances. For instance, where malpractices have been detected at an examination centre in the previous examination, that may be a reason to deny the allotment of the examination centre for the subsequent year. All that the circular dated 9 October 2013 does is to replace the mandatory requirement in clause 1(ka) with a requirement that ordinarily, a centre would be allotted where the institution has conducted examinations in the previous year in a peaceful manner. The expression 'ordinarily' means that the ordinary consequence can be disregarded for cogent and valid reasons. This does not amount to the conferment of an arbitrary or unguided power. In a given case, if the power is exercised arbitrarily, it would be open to an aggrieved institution to move the Court. Thirdly, it is well settled that in such areas of academic discretion, recourse to the jurisdiction under Article 226, would not be permissible to substitute the view of the Court with a view which has been taken by a competent body."
3. In the present case, the learned Single Judge has observed that the Standing Counsel after taking instructions stated that the institution was an examination centre in 2013 but by virtue of an adverse report which was received in regard to the fairness of the examination held in the institution, it was not allotted a centre for the 2014 examination. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the petition, has followed the view taken by the Division Bench in the aforesaid special appeal.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the name of the appellant institution does not figure in the list of institutions which have been debarred for the 2014 examination.
5. The mere fact that the institution has not been debarred would not entitle the appellant to the allotment of an examination centre. Even if an institution is not debarred, it is open to the competent authority to decide, in the interest of the examination process, whether an examination centre should be allotted to a particular institution. Where there is an adverse report, as in the present case, about the conduct of the examination during the previous year, the decision not to allot such institution an examination centre for the ensuing examination cannot be faulted with. More importantly, the duty of the Board, while allotting an examination centre, of holding a fair examination so as to maintain its sanctity must prevail over the right of any institution to be allotted an examination centre. Hence, we see no reason to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge.
6. The second submission that the objections of the appellant ought to have been decided, is again without merit. No institution has a right to claim that an examination centre should be allotted to it and, therefore, when there was a doubt in regard to the fairness of the previous year Board examination held in the appellant institution, the appellant cannot have any legitimate entitlement to the allotment of an examination centre in the next year. Hence, where an institution is not allotted an examination centre, there is no requirement that the non-allotment of the examination centre should be preceded by an enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The principles of natural justice are attracted where a decision affects the civil rights of an individual or is it a matter of prejudice. The decision not to allot an examination centre to a particular institution does not affect the civil rights of the institution nor is a matter of prejudice to the institution. The competent authority has to make appropriate arrangements for the conduct of the examination and it is for the authority to decide as to which institutions should be recognized as examination centres in the best interest of a fair and honest examination process. Hence, we do not find any merit in the second submission.
7. In the present case, it cannot be said that the discretion was exercised for extraneous reasons by the competent authority.
8. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the special appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.2.2014 AHA (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J.) (Dilip Gupta, J.) Hon'ble Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Chief Justice Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J.
Dismissed.
For orders, see order of date passed on separate sheets.
Order Date :- 11.2.2014 AHA (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J.) (Dilip Gupta, J.)