# Reetesh Kumar Singh v. Regional Secretary Board of High School & Intermediate Edu

- **Citation:** (2012) 3 ILRA 1486
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-11-01
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26493 of 2006
- **Bench:** Sibghat Ullah Khan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/reetesh-kumar-singh-v-regional-secretary-board-of-high-school-intermediate-edu-42332
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Principle of Natural Justice-cancellation
of
Intermediate
marks
sheet-with
direction to returned the mark sheet-on
ground
petitioner
was
caught
redhanded using unfair means-rejection of
representation challenged on ground of
opportunity if hearing as well as on
equity as petitioner had passed B.A.-II
year examination-petitioner unable to
show
if
opportunity
provided
what
plausible explanation would be given
about using unfair means-even after
getting marks sheet under "W.A." took
admission in B.A. Part I and II-inference
drawn about uses of unfair meansperfectly justified.

Held: Para-8

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.
Case Law discussed:
2000 (3) U.P.L.B.E.C. 2760; AIR 2000 SC
2783; 2007 (4) SCC 54

## Text

1486 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.11.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SIBGHAT ULLAH KHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26493 of 2006

Reetesh Kumar Singh

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Regional Secretary Board of High School
& Intermediate Edu.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Arvind Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Principle of Natural Justice-cancellation
of
Intermediate
marks
sheet-with
direction to returned the mark sheet-on
ground
petitioner
was
caught
redhanded using unfair means-rejection of
representation challenged on ground of
opportunity if hearing as well as on
equity as petitioner had passed B.A.-II
year examination-petitioner unable to
show
if
opportunity
provided
what
plausible explanation would be given
about using unfair means-even after
getting marks sheet under "W.A." took
admission in B.A. Part I and II-inference
drawn about uses of unfair meansperfectly justified.

Held: Para-8

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.
Case Law discussed:
2000 (3) U.P.L.B.E.C. 2760; AIR 2000 SC
2783; 2007 (4) SCC 54

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned standing counsel
for the respondents.

2. 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
3 All] Reetesh Kumar Singh V. Regional Secretary Board of High School & Intermediate Edu

1487
(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.

3. 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.

4. In the rejoinder affidavit, it has
been stated that petitioner also passed
B.A.-III in the year 2006.

5. 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."

6. 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.

7. 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
1488 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

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.

8. 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.

9. Accordingly, there is absolutely
no error in the impugned order. Petitioner
does not deserve grant of intermediate
certificate. Writ Petition is therefore
dismissed.
---------
 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.11.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SIBGHAT ULLAH KHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29795 of 2012

U.P. Lekhpals Sangh, Branch Ballia, And
Others

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226transfer-by common order about 254
Lekhpal transferred-from one tehsil to
another-intra-district-shocking state of
affairs most of them had worked more
than 27 years-no interference called forif they do not join within 9 week at
transferred
places-adverse
entry
be
given-petition dismissed-approval from
minister-obligatory.

Held: Para-4

This is very strange. From the transfer
list dated 23.5.2012 it appears that the
transferred lekhpals were working for
several years in same Tehsils. Some were
working for 28 years, some for 27 years,
more than 40 transferred lekhpals were
working for 17 years, about 40 were
working for 16 years. No transferred
lekhpal had worked at the Tehsil from
where he was transferred for less than
10 years. This was a horrible state of
affairs.
They
ought
to
have
been