2018 (2) TMI 947 - HC - Indian Laws

Appeal against Chartered Accountants Final Examination result - petitioners are aggrieved by the result declared and published on its website by the respondent-institute wherein all of them have failed in their respective Groups - credence given to the alleged notification being circulated on the whatsapp/facebook declreing the petitioners as passed - Held that - The foremost fact which emerges from the record is that there is no denial by any of the parties that the result declared on the websites of the respondent-institute has never been altered, which is not even the case of the petitioners. Thus, the only case set up by the petitioners is that a notification was purportedly issued by the institute and sent to all its councils, centres, members/office bearers as per which the petitioners had allegedly passed. It is however, interesting to note that even though the entire case of the petitioners is based on the said alleged notification, in which they claimed to have passed, the petitioners have very conveniently and for obvious reasons stated in the petition itself that they were not sure about the authenticity and correctness of the e-mails or of the messages being circulated on the whatsapp and facebook. Merely because the alleged notification contains the term published for general information cannot lead to the conclusion that the said notification was actually published especially in view of the categoric statement by the respondent-institute that the said alleged notification was never published in any manner. - find merit in the submission of Mr.Chandhiok senior counsel for the respondent that once it is the own case of the petitioners that the said alleged notification was sent only to their branches, centres and members, it is evident that the same was merely an internal communication in which subsequently certain mismatches were noticed and, therefore, when the final result was declared. The mismatches, if any, were rectified and only the correct result was published on the websites of the Respondent-Institute at 5.37 pm. on 17.01.2018 i.e. much before the circulation of the whatsapp messages containing the alleged notification. The Respondent-Institute had only published the correct result and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the alleged notification dated 17.01.2018 in which the petitioners claim to have been declared as successful. No ground to interfere with the final results published by the respondent on its websites.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the declared examination results.
2. Alleged alteration of results without following prescribed procedures.
3. Non-disclosure of criteria for moderation of results.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Validity of the Declared Examination Results:
The petitioners, students who appeared in the Chartered Accountants Final Examination in November 2017, were aggrieved by the results published on the respondent's website, showing them as failed. They claimed that initial notifications circulated via WhatsApp and Facebook indicated they had passed. However, these notifications were later contradicted by the official results on the respondent’s website. The court noted that the petitioners themselves were uncertain about the authenticity of these notifications and emphasized that the only official result was the one published on the respondent's websites.

Alleged Alteration of Results Without Following Prescribed Procedures:
The petitioners argued that the respondent altered the results without following the procedure prescribed under Regulation 39(7) of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988. They contended that the initial notification declaring them as passed was changed without giving them an opportunity to be heard, thus violating principles of natural justice. The court, however, found that there was no evidence of any alteration in the official results published on the respondent's websites. The court highlighted that the alleged notifications were merely internal communications and not official declarations, thus not warranting the application of Regulation 39(7).

Non-disclosure of Criteria for Moderation of Results:
The petitioners also sought the disclosure of the criteria used for moderation of results, arguing that the lack of transparency led to uncertainty. The court noted that Regulation 39(2) grants the council discretion to revise marks to maintain the standards of pass percentage. The court held that prescribing a fixed criterion for moderation would be counterproductive and that the discretion provided to the institute was appropriate to ensure fairness in each examination.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, stating that the official results published on the respondent's websites were final and unaltered. It found no merit in the petitioners' claims of result alteration or the need for disclosing moderation criteria. The court expressed concern over the irresponsible circulation of unverified information on social media but concluded that the legal position did not support the petitioners' claims. The writ petition was dismissed without any order as to costs.