SC 296 , 1991 (1 )SCALE187 , (1991 )2 SCC716 , [1991 ]1 SCR773 , 1991 (2 )SLR682 (SC ), ,MANU/SC/0583/1991
N.M. Kasliwal#K. Ramaswamy#2392SC3390Judgment/OrderINSC#JT#MANU#SCALE#SCC#SCR#SLRK. Ramaswamy,SUPREME COURT OF INDIA2012-9-24Interpretation clause of Evidence Act,Power of High Courts to issue certain writs,The High Court in the States,The States,Power of High Courts to issue certain writs,The High Court in the States,The States,Power of High Courts to issue certain writs,The High Court in the States,The States,Power of High Courts to issue certain writs,The High Court in the States,The States,Dismissal and Removal,Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State,Services Under the Union and the States,Law of Evidence,Constitution of India17176,10182,17060,17304,17163,16965,16930,16918,17162 -->
MANU/SC/0583/1991
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal Nos. 491 to 544 of 1991
Decided On: 12.03.1991
Appellants: Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Vs. Respondent: K.S. Gandhi and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
N.M. Kasliwal and K. Ramaswamy JUDGMENT
K. Ramaswamy, J.
1. We have heard the learned Counsel on either side and grant special leave to appeal in all the cases.
2. The quest for just result to save the precious academic years to the students while maintaining the unsullied examination process is the core problem which the facts have presented for solution.
3. The appeals arise from the common judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 2646 of 1990 and batch. The appellant for short 'the Board' conducted secondary examinations in the month of March 1990, whereat the marks awarded, after the formalities of valuation by the examiners of the answer-sheets in each subject; the random counter check by the moderators and further recounting at the Board, Moderators' mark-sheets sent to Pune for feeding the computer to declare the results were found tampered with the appellant. Thereon, admittedly, it was found that moderators ' mark-sheets relating to 283 examinees which include 53 respondents in these appeals were tampered, in many a case in more than 2 to 8 subjects, and in few cases in one subject. As a result, 214 examinees who were otherwise to fail would pass, and the remaining 69 examinees have improved their ranking, which would be in some cases exceptionally good. The declaration of their results were withheld pending further enquiry and the rest were declared on June 30, 1990. Several writ petitions were filed in the High Court against non-declaration of the results and the High Court directed to take expeditious action to declare the results of the examination within the specified time. The Board appointed seven enquiry officers to conduct the enquiry. Show cause notices were issued to the students on July 30, 1990 informing them of the nature of tampering, the subjects in which the marks were found tampered with, the marks initially obtained and the marks increased due to tampering, and also indicated the proposed punishment, if in the enquiry it would be found that marks were tampered with the knowledge or connivance or at the instance of the candidates or parents or guardians. They were also informed that they would be at liberty to inspect the documents at the Divisional Board at Bombay. They were entitled to adduce documentary and oral evidence at the hearing. They will also be permitted to cross-examine the witnesses of the Board, if any. They would not be entitled to appear through an Advocate, but the parents or guardians wo........