2016 (5) TMI 1419 - SC - Indian Laws

Cancellation of examination - commission of various offences pursuant to a large scale conspiracy in the context of the examination - FIR came to be registered against several persons including students and some employees of the State of Madhya Pradesh who were working in the administration of the BOARD - Held that - In view of the divergence of opinion in terms of separate judgments pronounced by us in these appeals today, the Registry is directed to place the papers before Hon ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate further orders.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the constitution of the Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board (Vyapam).
2. Allegations of mass copying and tampering in PMT examinations.
3. Compliance with principles of natural justice.
4. Justification of the cancellation of examination results.
5. Delay in taking action and its impact on students.
6. Equitable relief for students affected by the cancellation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Constitution of the Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board (Vyapam):
The Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board Act, 2007, required the establishment of a statutory board through a notification, which had not been issued. Despite this, an existing non-statutory board continued to function. The appellants argued that without the statutory notification, the board lacked the authority to cancel examinations. The court held that the executive power of the state could be exercised in the absence of legislation to protect public interest, thus validating the board's actions.

2. Allegations of Mass Copying and Tampering in PMT Examinations:
The board conducted an inquiry into the PMT examinations from 2008 to 2013 and found a pattern of tampering and mass copying. Evidence included deviations in roll number allotments and examination centers, matching incorrect answers among identified pairs of students, and the involvement of external "scorers" who facilitated copying. The court found the board's conclusions based on circumstantial evidence to be reasonable and supported by the data analyzed by an expert committee.

3. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellants contended that their admissions were canceled without a show cause notice or an opportunity to defend themselves, violating the principles of natural justice. The court referred to previous judgments, including Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha, which established exceptions to the rule of audi alteram partem in cases of mass copying. The court held that due to the large scale and systematic nature of the tampering, individual hearings were impracticable and unnecessary.

4. Justification of the Cancellation of Examination Results:
The board's decision to cancel the results was based on the findings of the expert committee, which identified systematic tampering and unfair means. The court upheld the cancellation, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the integrity of the examination process and the public interest in ensuring that only deserving candidates secure admissions.

5. Delay in Taking Action and Its Impact on Students:
The appellants argued that the delay in canceling the results, ranging from one to five years, was arbitrary and caused significant harm to their careers. The court acknowledged the delay but held that the detection of such widespread fraud justified the time taken for investigation. The court emphasized that the appellants could not retain the benefits obtained through fraudulent means.

6. Equitable Relief for Students Affected by the Cancellation:
The appellants sought relief under Article 142 of the Constitution, citing the significant impact on their lives and careers. The court recognized the appellants' argument but ultimately decided against granting such relief, emphasizing the need to uphold the rule of law and deter future misconduct. The court suggested that the state could consider allowing the affected students to reappear for the examination with age relaxation if necessary.

Separate Judgments:
One judge proposed a unique remedy where the appellants, if they completed their medical studies, should serve the nation for five years without regular salary, emphasizing the importance of utilizing their skills for public benefit. However, this view was not adopted in the final judgment.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the cancellation of the examination results, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the integrity of the examination process and the public interest. The court rejected the appellants' arguments regarding the legality of the board, compliance with natural justice, and the delay in taking action. The court also declined to grant equitable relief, underscoring the need to deter future misconduct and uphold the rule of law.

← Previous Next →