JUDGMENT O.P. Garg, J.
1.In spite of the fact that sufficient time has been allowed the respondents have not filed any counter-affidavit. However, the answer books of the present five petitioners have been brought before the Court for perusal.
2. Heard Sri V. K. Nagaich learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel on behalf of the respondents.
3. Km. Shailja Bhalla, Km. Monika Dixit, Km. Shristl Agrawal, Km. Archana Ravi and Km. Navnlka Saxena, who are brilliant students and have passed High School examination of the year 1997 in 1st Division have come before this Court with the prayer that the respondent No. 1 be directed to declare their results and Issue them proper and clean mark-sheets and certificates treating them to have passed the High School Examination of 1997 and that the orders which are contained in Annexures-6 to 11. all dated 12.12.1997 communicating to the petitioners that the result of High School Examination of 1997 has been cancelled, be quashed.
4. During the course of argument, it was pointed out that the case of the petitioners fell in the category of W.B., i.e.. their result was cancelled on the ground of adopting unfair means, inasmuch as. all of them were guilty of mass copying. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners were not caught red-handed adopting unfair means or indulged in mass copying In the examination hall at the time of writing answer books. There was no report of any invigilator or the Superintendent of Examination that the petitioners have resorted to unfair means in writing the answer books of English IInd paper. It appears that during the course of evaluation of answer books, concerned examiner reported that the case of the petitioners was that of suspected copying as they have committed common mistakes in respect of answer to question No. 3 (B). On the report of the screening committee formed to scrutinise the cases of the candidates, who have adopted unfair means, the result of the present five petitioners was cancelled.
5. According to the petitioners, a non-speaking order has been passed and that they have not been given reasonable opportunity to show cause. They have denied the allegation of having adopted any unfair means.
6. The averments made by the petitioners on affidavits remained unrebutted as no counter-affidavit, as said above, has been filed to countervail their assertions. There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioners were seated together in the examination hall. On the other hand, the petitioners have asserted that the seating arrangement was such that there was no possibility of having any consultation with the other examinees/ candidates and that the invigilation was so strict and alert that copying was not at all possible as the invigilation staff was further reinformed by police personnel.
7. I have perused all the five answer books of the petitioners with regard to the answer to question No. 3 (B) about which it is alleged that identical mistakes have been made and on the basis of which, it is suspected that the petitioners have Indulged in mass copying. It is true that there is some resemblance in the answer to question No. 3 (B) but the fact remains that resemblance of certain mistakes or spellings would not be sufficient to conclude that the petitioners have actually copied the answers of each other, particularly when there is resemblance only in few words. It is common knowledge that the students take recourse to and assistance from the key answer books/guess papers/guide books, which are in general circulation. If in the key answer books/guess papers/guide books, there is a mistake, all the candidates are bound to commit the same mistake, while writing their answers they are to be guided by the wrong answer given in the key answer books/guess papers/guide books. For example, in one of the key answer books, I have found that the name of the largest river of the country (in India) has been shown as Brahmaputra, unmindful of the changed scenario which has taken place after 1947. This answer may have been correct before partition in the year 1947 as the present Bangladesh was then part of India. Certainly the answer given in the key books that Brahmaputra is the largest river is wrong today for one simple reason that the area covered by East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) is no more the "part of India and substantial length of Brahmaputra river passes through Bangladesh and now the correct answer Is that the river Ganges (Ganga) is the largest in the country. Those students who have read the key answer book in which, largest river of the country is mentioned as Brahmaputra are bound to commit the same common mistake In the answer book and in these circumstances, it cannot be concluded that all those candidates who have given wrong answer have indulged in mass copying. Not only this, most of the students are used to get private coaching in which Important questions are solved and ready-made answers are given. If such answers suffer from some inaccuracy, all those students who have taken private coaching are bound to commit common mistakes or their answers would resemble with each other. Suspicion cannot take the place of proof. The mere fact that the petitioners might have indulged in mass copying is of no consequence for cancelling their results as there Is a yawning gap between 'might' and 'must'. Unless a finding is recorded that the petitioners have in fact taken the recourse to mass copying, their result could not have been cancelled in the manner in which it was done. It appears that the respondents finding themselves defenceless have abstained to file a counter-affidavit.
8. All the five girl students, who have come before this Court, as said above, have been successful in 1st division. Some of them have secured distinction also. It cannot be expected that such brilliant students would resort to mass copying in respect of an answer to a fraction of question which carries very little marks.
9. In the result, I find that the cancellation of the result of the High School examination of 1997 of the petitioners has been illegally done on the basis of mere surmises and conjectures. The petition, therefore, succeeds.
10. The writ petition is allowed-and the impugned orders, all dated 12.12.1997, contained In Annexures-6 to 11, are hereby quashed. The respondents are commanded to declare the result of the petitioners of the High School Examination of 1997 and issue them proper and clean mark-
sheets and certificates ignoring the orders dated 12.12.1997. The result, in the light of above direction, shall be declared and the clean mark-sheets shall be issued within one month from today.