2003 (9) TMI 763 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether there is no equity in favour of respondent No. 3, inasmuch as he knew that his result has been withheld because of the allegation of having used unfair means in the Examination?

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Opportunity of hearing before cancellation of examination results.
2. Legality of cancellation after more than 10 years.
3. Equitable considerations given the respondent's subsequent academic and professional achievements.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Opportunity of hearing before cancellation of examination results:
The respondent No. 3 challenged the cancellation of his Intermediate Examination result on the ground that he was not afforded any opportunity of hearing. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that in cases of mass copying, it may not be possible to comply with the principles of natural justice. The Board of High School & Intermediate Education stated in their counter-affidavit that the respondent No. 3 was given an opportunity of hearing before the result was cancelled on 6.1.1985. The Supreme Court noted that in cases of mass copying, strict compliance with natural justice principles is not necessary. The Court also observed that the respondent No. 3 was aware of the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 19th September 1983, which provided guidelines for the issuance of provisional mark-sheets in cases of mass copying.

2. Legality of cancellation after more than 10 years:
The respondent No. 3 argued that the cancellation of his result after more than 10 years was arbitrary and illegal. The Court found that the issuance of a provisional mark-sheet without the words "W.B." (result withheld) and another mark-sheet with the words "W.B." indicated a fraud committed by the Principal of the College. The respondent No. 3 was the sole beneficiary of this fraud and was presumed to be a party to it. The Court referred to the principle that "fraud unravels everything," meaning that any advantage obtained by fraud cannot be allowed to stand. The Court also noted that the records had been weeded out, making it futile to afford an opportunity of hearing to the respondent No. 3 at this stage.

3. Equitable considerations given the respondent's subsequent academic and professional achievements:
The respondent No. 3 contended that since he had passed the B.A. and M.A. Examinations and secured employment as a Teacher, equity demanded that the cancellation of his Intermediate Examination result be set aside. The learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court had allowed the writ petition on the ground that canceling the result would ruin the respondent No. 3's career. However, the Supreme Court found no equity in favor of the respondent No. 3, as he knew that his result had been withheld due to allegations of using unfair means. The Court observed that the respondent No. 3 suppressed this fact and took admission in B.A. and studied further. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and the learned Single Judge, allowing the appeal with no order as to costs.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the cancellation of the respondent No. 3's Intermediate Examination result was justified, given the fraud involved and the lack of equity in his favor. The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the High Court and the learned Single Judge were set aside.