Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.
Petitioner appeared in the intermediate examination in the year 2002 conducted by U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate as an student of Mahabodhi Inter College, Sarnath Varanasi from examination centre S.G. Inter College, Gaurakala, Charigaon, Varanasi. Petitioner's computerised marksheet showing him passed had been sent to the college in question however through order dated 27.12.2002 issued by the Board, the marksheet was required to be sent back. The letter was written to the principle of the college. The earlier marksheet had been issued under the category ''WA'. The marksheet was directed to be returned on the ground that petitioner while attempting Physics-II paper had been caught red handed using unfair means. The allegation of the petitioner is that he was not aware of cancellation of his result and in the year 2003 he wanted intermediate certificate which was not made available to him by the clerk of the college. It is mentioned that thereafter on 10.02.2004 petitioner approached the Principal again who asked him to file application before the Board therefore on the said date he filed application to the respondent No.1, Regional Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Regional Office, Varanasi through the Principal (paras 8 & 9 of the writ petition). Thereafter, petitioner filed writ petition in this court being Writ Petition No.5531 of 2006, which was disposed of on 30.01.2006 with liberty to file fresh representation, which was accordingly done by the petitioner. The said representation was disposed of/ dismissed on 24.03.2006 by respondent No.1, copy of which is Annexure-VII to the writ petition, which has been challenged through this writ petition. It is mentioned in the said order that petitioner's result of physics-II paper had been cancelled on the ground that he was caught red handed using unfair means. It has been stated that after getting the marksheet under ''W.A.' category, petitioner took admission in B.A. and passed I and II year of B.A.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a Division Bench authority of this Court reported in Jayanti Prasad Dwivedi Vs. University of Allahabad and others, 2000 (3) U.P.L.B.E.C. 2760 holding that if result is cancelled on the ground of using unfair means notice and opportunity of hearing should be provided to the candidate.
In the rejoinder affidavit, it has been stated that petitioner also passed B.A.-III in the year 2006.
Para-15 of the writ petition is quoted below:
"That, the petitioner did not adopt any unfair means in aforesaid examination and materials which were alleged to be recovered from the petitioner were not used by him and as such decision taken by the decision committee is behind the back of the petitioner does not sustainable in the eye of law."
In view of the above clear cut admission there remains/ remained nothing to be decided further. Even if for the sake of argument it is assumed in favour of the petitioner that opportunity of hearing was not granted to the petitioner still in view of Supreme Court authorities reported in A.M.U. Aligarh Vs. M.A. Khan, AIR 2000 SC 2783 and Ashok Kumar Sonekar Vs. Union of India, 2007 (4) SCC 54, holding that in case petitioner challenges an action on the ground of denial of opportunity of hearing through writ petition, then in the writ petition he will have to show that in case opportunity had been provided, what plausible cause would have been shown by him. In the instant case after categorical admission of the petitioner in the above quoted para-15 of the writ petition of being in possession of unauthorised material no fault can be found with the cancellation of the result order. Petitioner admits that he was having materials connected with the paper in question. If a student has got with him the material relating to the answers of the paper which he is writing no other inference can be drawn except that he has used unfair means. It is not at all necessary to further show that the invigilator actually saw him copying from the material in his answer sheet.
Moreover according to the own case of the petitioner after June, July 2002 when the result must have been declared, he filed the first application before respondent No.1 on 10.02.2004. In para-6 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that through letter dated 19.02.2003 information of cancellation of result had been sent to the petitioner through his college (Mahabodhi Inter College, Sarnath Varanasi) and that the unauthorised material recovered from the petitioner etc. had been weeded out according to the relevant Rules. As far as sending the application to respondent No.1 dated 10.02.2004 is concerned in para-10 of the counter affidavit receipt of any such application has been denied. Even in para-9 of the writ petition only this much has been stated that the alleged representation dated 10.02.2004 was sent to respondent No.1 through respondent No.2, Principal of the college in question. There is absolutely no explanation as to why no representation was directly sent to respondent No.1. In fact after cancellation of the result in December, 1992/ January, 1993 the first thing which the petitioner did was filing the earlier writ petition (Writ Petition No.5531 of 2006). All the records pertaining to cancellation of result had been weeded out meanwhile. Accordingly, even the allegation that opportunity of hearing was not provided to the petitioner cannot be accepted. By approaching this court and respondent No.1 quite late, petitioner allowed the records to be weeded out.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that petitioner has passed B.A. and cancellation of intermediate result would cause irreparable loss to him. This argument cannot be accepted. If petitioner did not pass intermediate and was found using unfair means then no sympathetic view can be taken. Moreover, such sympathy would encourage cheating in examination and approaching the authorities and the courts after several years so that records may be weeded out and a student may say whatever he likes.
Accordingly, there is absolutely no error in the impugned order. Petitioner does not deserve grant of intermediate certificate. Writ Petition is therefore dismissed.
Order Date :- 01.11.2012 NLY