ORDER
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
2. Perused the record.
3. The petitioners had appeared in the High School examination of the year 1994 conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P. The results of the petitioners were initially withheld but later on vide the order dt. 30-12-1994, the petitioners were informed that the Board of High School and Intermediate vide the order dt. 30-11-1994 had cancelled their results.
4. From the perusal of the order dt. 30-11-1994 it appears that the results had been cancelled on the basis of the finding that the petitioners were guilty of using unfair means in the said examination. The aforesaid order also indicates that before taking the aforesaid decision the explanations furnished by the petitioners and the reports of the competent committee and other officers and relevant answer books and other evidence and materials including intrinsic evidence contained in the answer books had been taken into account.
5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the aforesaid order.
6. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court dt. 27-1-1995, the learned Standing Counsel representing the aforesaid respondents has produced the relevant record relating to the proceedings culminating in the impugned order which has also been perused along with the record of the present writ petition.
7. From the perusal, of the record, it appears that the charge levelled against the petitioners was that they had used unfair means, while answering question No. 3-A of English IInd Paper. This question containing four marks was a piece of prose in English language which was required to be translated in Hindi language. The record further shows that the petitioners had been awarded marks by the examiner so far a"s the aforesaid question is concerned varying between 01 to 03. The basis of the charge disclosed was that the answer to the aforesaid question given by Km. Sushma Raghav was similar to the candidates with roll number 112232 and 112227, that of Km. Geeta Chaudhary was similar to the candidates with roll number 112211 and 112232, that of Km. Shalini Agrawal was similar to that of candidates with roll numbers 112227 and 112241, that of Atul Kumar was similar to the answers given by the candidates having roll numbers 112013 and 112016, that of Bin Yasin Khan was similar to the answers given by the candidates having roll numbers 112016 and 112027 that of Mahesh Gautam was similar to the answers given by the candidates having roll numbers 112041 and 112073, that of Manoj Kumar Gautam was similar to the answers given by the candidates having roll numbers 112070 and 112089, that of Pavanendra Kumar Singh was similar to the answers given by the candidates having roll numbers 112073 and 112094, that of Binod Kumar Agrawal was similar to the answers given by the candidates having roll numbers 112141 and 112149,that of Yogendra Singh was similar to the answers given by the candidates having roll numbers 112149 and 112188, that of Km. Madhuri Rawat was similar to the answers given by the candidates having roll numbers 1260025 and 1260032, that of Km, Gauri Sharma was similar to the answers given by the candidates having roll numbers 1259928 and 1259929 and that of Smt. Sunaina Devi was similar to the answers given by the candidates having roll numbers 1260028 and 1260057.
8. A written examination assesses the intellect of a person. It is an assessment by qualified persons for the levels of intellectual competence. Translation is like serving two I masters at the same time. Language do differ-widely in their grammatical and syntactical, structures and though one hopes to meet the demands of the source and the receiving language in a hallowed manner, in fact compromises have to be made one way or the other. The examinees endeavour to produce the best approximation to the original not only within the limitations of their abilities but more so within those set up by the receiving language. The expression sought to be conveyed in the original have to be conveyed through the medium of the receiving language and the vocabulary available in the receiving Language depicting various shades expression have to be matched. The examinees may have different levels of abilities with varying degree of accessibility so far as the choice of words in the receiving language is concerned. The examinees may also have different grades of ability in understanding the expressions sought to be conveyed by the original. Further, there may be a case where depending upon the-teaching and the experience received by them, the examinees may have a similar approach while translating a piece in one language into a different language. This may result in adopting of an expression in the receiving language which is common to all or may have similarities. Mere similarities however, may raise a suspicion about using unfair means but mere suspicion should not be taken as a substitute for the proof.
9. It will not be out of place to notice that the malpractices committed by the students in the examinations seriously affect innocent and intelligent students. In the present system of education, as observed by the Apex Court in its decision in the case of Controller of Examinations v. G. S. Sunder and others, reported in 1992 (4) JT SC, 204 the system of examination, is the best suited to assess the progress of the students so long as they are fairly conducted and interference by the Court in every case may lead to unhappy results making the system of examination a farce. The Apex Court emphasised that we cannot but strongly condemn copying in the examination which have grown into cancer of mass copying and such unhealthy practices which are like poisonous weeds in the field of education must be rooted out in order that the innocents and intelligent students are not affected.
10. However, a stigma of using unfair means is of a far reaching consequences and visits the examinee with serious evil consequences. While it should not be lost sight of that in matters of enforcement of discipline this Court must be very slow in interference as the authorities incharge of education whose duty it is to conduct examination fairly and properly know best how to deal with a particular situation yet it has to be kept in mind that if the conclusion in regard to imposition of penalty for the use of unfair means is established to be based on mere suspicion or based on no evidence or on conclusion which no reasonable person could have reached or is vitiated on account of denial of principle of natural justice or any other similar ground, interference by this Court may be called for.
11. As observed by this Court in its decision rendered by a-Division Bench in the case of Harish Chandra Tewari v. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, reported in AIR 1981 All 144, the apparent or striking similarity of pattern in answers of examinees in the cases of translation cannot lead to the sure conclusion that the examinee had resorted to unfair means. It depends on the nature of the subject matter. In some cases the subject may be so trite and common place as not to permit any novelty or variety of expression. In such a circumstance the answers are bound to be more or less identical. There may be yet another case where the subject matter may be inherently such as to afford multiple modes of expression but in such a case a stale similarity of expression may lead to an inference of copying. However, a dependable lest for ascertaining whether there was copying is the test of the nature of common mistakes shared. It was cautioned that a single common mistake found in the answers and that too of a casual nature would not justify a presumption of copying but if there are numerous mistakes which appear to be of an uncommon character, amounting to absurdity and they are found identically occurring in the various answer books, surely there would be justification for saying that they flow from copying. It was further observed that when identical absurdities synchronise in abundant profusion one cannot but hold that there was copying.
12. In the present case, what I find is that apart from similarity of pattern found in the answers of the examinees and the variation and in some cases a slight variation in the expression, there is nothing which could even lead to suspicion of copying or the use of unfair means. The present one does not appear to be a case of common mistakes of an uncommon character amounting to absurdity occurring identically in the various answer books.
13. In the circumstances indicated here-ihabove, it is apparent that the conclusion reached by the respondent authority finding the petitioners guilty of resorting to the use of unfair means, while answering question No. 3-A when they had specifically denied to have done so and had asserted that they had done the translation themselves without any out side help and had further denied to have copied from any other answer book, cannot be sustained.
14. In the aforesaid view of the matter, sufficient ground has been made out for an interference by this Court.
15. In the result this writ petition succeeds and the impugned order cancelling the results of the petitioners is quashed with the direction to the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to declare the result of the petitioners within two weeks of the production of a certified copy of this order.
16. There shall however, be no orders as to cost.
17. Petition allowed.