JUDGMENT Vineet Saran, J.
1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the direction of the Board by which the name of the petitioner-institution has been deleted from the list of centres for High School examinations. The petitioners further pray for a direction to the respondents to restore the petitioner-college as an examination centre.
2. I have heard Sri Manu Yadav, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Pleadings have been exchanged and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.
3. The petitioner No. 1 is an institution duly recognized by the U.P. High School and Intermediate Education Board (for short "Board"). It is also duly recognized as an examination centre for the High School examinations. The petitioner No. 2 is the Manager of the said institution.
4. Although there is no separate order passed in the case of the petitioners but the name of the petitioner-college has been included in the list of over 600 colleges which have been derecognized as examination centres for three years. Even alongwith the counter affidavit, the respondents have not filed any order in the individual case of the petitioner-college de-recognizing it as a centre but it has been stated that the same has been done on the basis of the report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate submitted to the District Magistrate, Shahjahanpur on 29.3.2006. On the basis of the said report, the District Inspector of Schools wrote to the Secretary of the Board, and in turn the Chairman of the Examination Committee directed inclusion of the name of the petitioner-college in the list of colleges which are to be debarred for three years from holding the examinations.
5. A perusal of the report dated 29.3.2006 submitted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate shows, that at the time of inspecting the said centre, he had found a student standing under suspicious circumstances and that there was similarity in the answers given by several students, and that he was informed that some outsiders were seen in the vicinity of the examination centre. It was on the basis of such report that the District Inspector of Schools wrote to the Secretary of the Board on 1.4.2006 stating that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had submitted a report that the invigilator was dictating the answers, and as such mass-copying was being done at the examination centre. It is because of such reports that the examination centre of the petitioner-college had been cancelled for three years.
6. Sri Manu Yadav, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is not the authority empowered under the Act and the Regulations for assessing the fairness of the examination, and it is only the educational authorities which are authorized to do so, and in the absence of there being any independent report of any educational authority with regard to any misconduct in the holding of examination, the order debarring the petitioner-college from being an examination centre, solely on the basis of the report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, would not be justified. It has also been submitted that the educational authorities have not taken any action with regard to the cancellation of examination in which the mass-copying has been alleged, nor any action has been taken against the invigilators or the Centre Superintendent, and as such also the action of the respondents in the case of the petitioner is totally unjustified. It was lastly submitted that valuable rights of the petitioners are affected by passing of the order debarring the petitioner-college from being an examination centre, and the same could not have been passed without complying with the principles of natural justice, and in the present case no notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners before passing the said order.
7. Sri M.P.S. Niranjan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has, however, submitted that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is a responsible officer and an order passed on the report submitted by him would be fully justified. It has also been submitted that in such cases, opportunity of hearing would not be required to be given, and in case if it is found by the authorities that the examinations at a particular centre have not been conducted properly, the said institution can be debarred from being an examination centre.
8. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, in my view, the inclusion of the petitioner-college in the list of the examination centres which have been debarred for three years, is not justified.
9. It is true that the educational authorities are empowered to pass an order debarring an institution from being an examination centre, but the same can be done only in accordance with law and for justifiable reasons. The report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate may be an important document for arriving at a conclusion as to whether examinations at a particular centre were being conducted properly or not, but that alone cannot be sufficient ground for cancellation of the examination centre. Under the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder, it is the Centre Superintendent who is responsible for the fair conduct of the examinations. Section 2(g) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 defines a Superintendent of Centre "to mean a person appointed by the Board to conduct and supervise examinations of the Board". The Superintendent of the Centre makes a report of each days examination held at the centre which is forwarded to the higher educational authorities. It is only such report which can form a basis for arriving at a conclusion as to whether the examinations at the particular centre were held fairly or not. The copy Of such daily report of the Centre Superintendent has been filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition, which has not been denied in the counter, affidavit. A perusal of the said report submitted by the Centre Superintendent clearly shows that on the said date when the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had inspected, there was examination of Mathematics Paper, and the same was conducted at the centre peacefully. In the communication of the District Inspector of Schools dated 1.4.2006, not. a word has been mentioned about the said report of the Centre Superintendent and even otherwise, he has totally misread the report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, which does not anywhere mention that mass-copying was being done at the instance of the invigilator.
10. Now coming to the report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, a perusal of the same clearly shows that it is based on his own reading of the situation. It has been mentioned that a person was found there under suspicious circumstances. The same cannot be understood to mean that the students were using unfair means. It has further been stated in the said report that there was similarity in the answers given by several students. First of all, it is not understood as to how the Sub-Divisional Magistrate found such similarity unless he had examined the answer copies of several students, for which he was not empowered. An administrative authority can have over all supervision with regard to law and order situation but he is not expected to, nor does he have any authority to pick up the answer copies of the students appearing in the examination and examine the same. If that has been done by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for finding out that there was similarity in the answers given by several students, the same was certainly not proper as that would amount to creating hindrance and disturbance to the students appearing in the examinations.
11. For conducting the examinations and other matters, Section 13 of the Act provides for committees to be appointed, one of which is Examinations Committee. Chapter VI of the Regulations framed under the Act deals with Examinations Committee. Under Clause 2(h) of Chapter VI of the Regulations, it is the duty of the Examinations Committee to create a centre or debar it from holding examinations. Once an institution is permitted for holding examinations, it is the Committee alone which can debar it. In the counter affidavit, nothing has been said as to whether any decision had been taken by the Examinations Committee in the case of the petitioner or not. It has been stated by the learned Standing Counsel that the Director of Secondary Education is the Chairman of the Examinations Committee and as such the order passed by the Director of Secondary Education withdrawing an institution as an examination centre would be an order passed by the Examinations Committee. Such submission cannot be accepted in law as an order passed by the Chairman of the committee cannot be said to be the decision of the committee. Even otherwise the petitioner-college had admittedly not been given any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing before passing the order, withdrawing the institution as an examination centre. It is well established law that once a right has accrued in favour of a particular party, the same can be withdrawn only after following the principles of natural justice. Since in this case, the order debarring the petitioner-college from being an examination centre for three years has been passed without issuing any show cause notice or giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, in the present set of facts and circumstances, the same would be liable to be set aside on this ground also, as having been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.
12. It is true that normally Courts do not interfere in matters relating to examinations, but the same would apply only when the orders have been passed by an authorized person, based on the reports of the appropriate authorities and not on the basis of a report given by an outside authority. For taking action against an institution, the Act and the Regulations provide for a procedure, which has to be followed. The facts of the present case reveal that the order in this case, whereby the petitioner-institution has been debarred from being an examination centre for three years, has been passed not only ignoring the principles of natural justice but it has also been passed by the Director, and not by the Examinations Committee, which alone is authorized to pass such orders. Further, the basis of the said order is not any independent report of any educational authority but on the report of an administrative officer, which is not recognized under the Act or the Regulations framed thereunder.
13. As such, for the foregoing reasons, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and is, accordingly, allowed. The order debarring the petitioner-college from being an examination centre for three years is quashed and it is provided that the petitioner-college shall be restored as an examination centre for holding the examinations under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act.
14. No costs.