# [1985] 1 S.C.R. 29

- **Citation:** [1985] 1 S.C.R. 29
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1984-07-17
- **Bench:** D.A. Desai, V. Balakrishna Eradi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1985-1-s-c-r-29-8688
- **Pages:** 34

## Headnote

Education laws-Right to demand by an exam/nee an inspection, verification and revaluation of answer books-Constitutional validity of Regulation
I 04(3) of the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards
Regulations, 1977 negativing such righu-Princip/e of natural justice under
education laws, explained-Delegated legislation and Court.• power to interpre1Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Boards Act, 1965 Sections 19
and 36-Rules of interpretation of Rules and RegulaJion.v, explained.
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 36 of the Maharashtra
Second3ry and Higher Secondary Boards Act, 1965, the State Board has
framed the Maharashtra Secondary and .Higher Secondary Education Boards'
Regulations 1977. These regulations were sanctioned by the State Government uader sub-section 3 of section 36 on I Ith July, 1977 and came inlo
force on lSth June. 1971. These regulations were applied to the SecondJry
School Certificate examination and Higher Secondary Certificate examination
held in October, 1977 and thereafter Regulation 104 refers to verific.:!tion of
marks obtained by a candidate in a subject. Clause (1) thereof restricts
verification to checking whether all the answers have
been
~xamined
and that there has been no mistake in the totalling of marks for each
question in that ~ubject and transferring marks co1rectly on the first cover
page of the answer book and. whether the supplements attached to the
answer book mentioned by the candidate are in tact. Clause ( 1) al~o speaks
of revaluation and prohibits revaluation of the answer books or supplements.
B
c
D
E
F
Clause (3) of the said regulation also speaks of right to claim revaluation by
G
an examinee and is to the effect : "no candidate sh~ll claim, or be e~titled to
revaluation of his anwer or disclosure or inspection of the answer books or
other documents as these are treated by the Divisional Board as most
confidential.
~ number t;tf
~sqccessfql and disappointed
ca~did~tes wtio
h~d
H
A
B
c
30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1985] ] S.C.R.
appeared for
the Higher Secondary Certificate and Secondary School
Certificate public examinations conducted by the Divisional Boards function~
ing under the supervision and control of the Mabara~htra State Board of
Secondary and Higher Secondary Education filed a batch of 39 Writ
Petitions in the High Court of Bombay challenging the validity of Clauses
(J) and (3) of regulation 104 of lhc Maharashtra Secondary and Higher
Secondary Education Boards Regulations 1977 and seeking the issuance of
writs directing the Board to allow them disclosure and inspection of their
answer books in the public examination, the results whereof had already
been published and to conduct a revaluation of fUCh of the answer papers as
the petitioners may d~mand after the inspection.
The writ petitioners had based their challengs against the validity of
clauses (1) and (3) of Regulation 104 on three main grounds :-(1) The
Impugned clauses were violative of the principles of natural justice; (2) Both
clnuses (1) and (3) were ultra vires and void on the ground of their being in
excess of the regulation making powers conferred on the 81)aid by Section
D
36 of the Act; and (3) The impugned provisions contained in clauses (I) and
(3) were highly unreasonable and since the regulations fra11_1ed by the Board
are in the nature of bye-laws, they are liable to be struck down on the
ground of unreasonableness.
E
F
H
The High Court divided the Writ Petitions into two groups; the first
group consisting of cases where the right of inspection alone was claimed
and second
group
compr1s1ng
of cases
where
the
petitioners had
claimed also a further right to demand a revaluation of the answer papers.
The High Court allowed the petitions· by two separate judgments one in
rrspect of the first group holding that clause (3) of regulation 104 which
Jays down that no candidate shall be tntitled to disclosure or inspection of
the anS\\'f'r books or other documents as

## Text

_Characters 0–39,956 of 88,815. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39956 for what follows._

..
MAHARASHTRA s·TATE BOARD OF SbCONDARY
AND HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION
ANDANR.
v •
PARITOSH BHUPESH KUMAR SHETH ET
July 17, 1984
[D.A. DESAI AND V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, JJ.)
Education laws-Right to demand by an exam/nee an inspection, verification and revaluation of answer books-Constitutional validity of Regulation
I 04(3) of the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards
Regulations, 1977 negativing such righu-Princip/e of natural justice under
education laws, explained-Delegated legislation and Court.• power to interpre1Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Boards Act, 1965 Sections 19
and 36-Rules of interpretation of Rules and RegulaJion.v, explained.
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 36 of the Maharashtra
Second3ry and Higher Secondary Boards Act, 1965, the State Board has
framed the Maharashtra Secondary and .Higher Secondary Education Boards'
Regulations 1977. These regulations were sanctioned by the State Government uader sub-section 3 of section 36 on I Ith July, 1977 and came inlo
force on lSth June. 1971. These regulations were applied to the SecondJry
School Certificate examination and Higher Secondary Certificate examination
held in October, 1977 and thereafter Regulation 104 refers to verific.:!tion of
marks obtained by a candidate in a subject. Clause (1) thereof restricts
verification to checking whether all the answers have
been
~xamined
and that there has been no mistake in the totalling of marks for each
question in that ~ubject and transferring marks co1rectly on the first cover
page of the answer book and. whether the supplements attached to the
answer book mentioned by the candidate are in tact. Clause ( 1) al~o speaks
of revaluation and prohibits revaluation of the answer books or supplements.
B
c
D
E
F
Clause (3) of the said regulation also speaks of right to claim revaluation by
G
an examinee and is to the effect : "no candidate sh~ll claim, or be e~titled to
revaluation of his anwer or disclosure or inspection of the answer books or
other documents as these are treated by the Divisional Board as most
confidential.
~ number t;tf
~sqccessfql and disappointed
ca~did~tes wtio
h~d
H
A
B
c
30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1985] ] S.C.R.
appeared for
the Higher Secondary Certificate and Secondary School
Certificate public examinations conducted by the Divisional Boards function~
ing under the supervision and control of the Mabara~htra State Board of
Secondary and Higher Secondary Education filed a batch of 39 Writ
Petitions in the High Court of Bombay challenging the validity of Clauses
(J) and (3) of regulation 104 of lhc Maharashtra Secondary and Higher
Secondary Education Boards Regulations 1977 and seeking the issuance of
writs directing the Board to allow them disclosure and inspection of their
answer books in the public examination, the results whereof had already
been published and to conduct a revaluation of fUCh of the answer papers as
the petitioners may d~mand after the inspection.
The writ petitioners had based their challengs against the validity of
clauses (1) and (3) of Regulation 104 on three main grounds :-(1) The
Impugned clauses were violative of the principles of natural justice; (2) Both
clnuses (1) and (3) were ultra vires and void on the ground of their being in
excess of the regulation making powers conferred on the 81)aid by Section
D
36 of the Act; and (3) The impugned provisions contained in clauses (I) and
(3) were highly unreasonable and since the regulations fra11_1ed by the Board
are in the nature of bye-laws, they are liable to be struck down on the
ground of unreasonableness.
E
F
H
The High Court divided the Writ Petitions into two groups; the first
group consisting of cases where the right of inspection alone was claimed
and second
group
compr1s1ng
of cases
where
the
petitioners had
claimed also a further right to demand a revaluation of the answer papers.
The High Court allowed the petitions· by two separate judgments one in
rrspect of the first group holding that clause (3) of regulation 104 which
Jays down that no candidate shall be tntitled to disclosure or inspection of
the anS\\'f'r books or other documents as these are to be treated as most
confidential is ultra vires on the ground of its being in excess of the regulalion making power of the Board and by another judgment in the second
group holding that the provisions contained in clause (1) of regulation 104
that, no revaluation of fhc answer books or supplements shall be done is
ultra vires the regulation making power conferred by section 36 and is also
illegal and void on the ground of its being
manifestly unreasonable.
Aggrieved by these judgments rendered in the two groups of cases the
appellant Bqard preferred these appeals after obtaining Special Leave of the
Court.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
f!ELD: t:t. Regulation 104(3) of the Maharashtra
Secondary and
•
STATE EDN, BOARD v. P. B. KUMARSHETH
31
Higher Secondary Baard Regulations 1977 is valid. The process of evaluaA
tion of answer papers or subsequent verification of marks under clause (3)
of regulation 104 does not attract the principles of na1ural justice since 'no
decision making process which brings about adverse civil consequences to the
examinees js involved. Non-disclosure or disallowance of the right of
inspection of the answer books as well as denial of the right to ask for a
revaluation to examinees who are dissatisfied with the results do not visit
them with adverse civil consequences. There is no substance in the contention
that every adverse verific.ation involves a condcmration of the examin~es
behind their back and hence constitutes a clear violation of principles of·
natural justice.[62E, 4 ID-E, F-G]
B
I :2. The principles of natural justice cannot be extended beyond
C
reasonable and rational limits and cannot be carried into such absurd lengths
as to make it necessary that candidates who have taken a public examination
should be allov.'ed to participate in the proces of evaluation of their
performances or to verify the correctne&s of the e''a\uation made by the
examiners by themselves conducting an inspection of 1hc answer books and
determining whether there has been a proper and fair valuation of the
answers by the examiners. [41 H; 42A]
Union of India v. M.L. Kapur, [1974] 1 S.C.R. 797; referred to.
2:1. The question whether a particular piece of deligated legislation
D
whether a rule or regulation. or other type of statutory instrument_,;is in
E
excess of· the power of subordinate Jcghlation conferred on the delegate has
to be determined with reference only to the. specific provisions contained in
the relevant statute conferring the power to make the rule, regulation. etc.
and also the object and purpose of the Act as can be gathered fron1 the
various provisions of the enactment. (43 A-B]
2:2. The Court cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the
Jegisl ature or its delegate as to what principle or policy would best serve
the object and purposes of the Act and it carinot sit in judgment over the
wisdom and effectiveness or otherwise of the policy laid down by the
regulation n1aking body and declare a regulation to be ultra viri:s merely on
the ground that, in_ the view of the Court the impugned provisions will not
help to serve the objoct and purpose of the Act. So long as the body
entrusted with the task of fram\ng the rules or regulations acts within the
scope of the authority conferred on it, in the sense that the rules or regulations made by it have a rational nexus with the ·object and purpose of the
stat~te, the Court should not concern itself with the wisdom or efficatiousness of such rules or regulations. It is excluSively within the province
of the legislature and its delegate to determine as a matter of policy, how
tho
provisio~s of the statμte 9an best be implemented and what measures~
F
G
'"
32
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1985] l s.c.R.
A
substantive as well as pr~cedural would have to be . incorporated in the
rules or regulations for the efficacious achievement of the objects and
purposes of the Act. It is not for the Court to examine
the merits or
demerits of such a policy because its scrutiny has to be limited to the
question as to whether the impugned regulations fall within the scope of the
B
regulation making power conferred on the delegate by the statute. [43 C-F]
3: I. The view taken by the High Court that clause (J) of the regulation
104 is ultra vires on the ground of its being in excess of the regulationmaking power conferred on the Board is not correct. [45-B]
3:2. Any drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation
C
will not render 1t ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the
grbund, that, in its opinion. it is not a wise or prudent. but is even a foolish
one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of tbe Act. The
legislature and its deleg·1tes are the sole repositories of the power to decide
what policy should be pursued in relation to matters covGred by the Act and
D
E
F
G
II
there is no scope for interference by the Court unless the particular
provision im,pugned before it can be said to suffer from any legal infirmity,
in the sense of its being wholly beyond the scope of the regulation-making
power or its being inconsistent with any of the provisions of the parent
enactment or in violation of any of the limitations imposed by the Constitu·
tion. None of these vitiating factors are shown to exist in the present case.
[46E-F]
3:3. The provisions of sections 19 and 36 of the Act make it clear
that a duty is cast on the State Board to formulate its policy as to how the
examinations are to be conducted, how the valuation of the performances of
the candidates is to be made and by what procedure the re ults are to be
finalised, compiled and released. It is perfectly within the competence of the
Board, rather, it was its plain duty, to apply its mind and deci~e as a matter
of policy relating to the conduct of the examination as to whether disclosure
and inspection of the an~wer book~ should be allowed to the candidates,
whether and to what extent verification of the result should be permitted
after the results hcive been announced and whether any right to claim
revaluation of the answer book should be recognised or provided f0r. All
these are undoubtedly matters which have an intimate nexus with the objects
and purposes of the enactment and are, therefore, within the ambit of the
general power to make regu·ntions conferred by sub-section 1 of section 36,
and also within the scope of clauses (cj, (f) and (g) of 5Ub-section 2 of the
said section.
[44F-H; 45 A-B]
4:1. Clause (3) or Regulatioe 10'4 is not in the nature of a bye-law
~Qcl it is not an unreasonable provision. [46 H]
-
l
-..·
•
»
STATE EDN. BOARD 1'· P.B. KUMARSH£TH
33
4:2. While the power to rpake regulations for the purpose of carrying
A
into effect the provisions of the Act, is conferred on the Boar_d by section
36, section 38 confers a distinct power of making bye-laws. The legislature,
while ea<1cting sections 36 and 38 mast be assumed to have been fully aware
of the niceties of 1be legal position governing the distinction between rules/
regtilations properly so called and bye.Jaws. When .the statute cont<_:tins a
clear indication that the distinct regulation making power conferred under
section 36 was not intended as a power merely to fram ebyelaws, it is not
open to the Court to ignore the same and treat the regulations made under
section 36 as mere bye-laws in order to bring them within the scope of
justiciability by applying the test of reasonableness.
[47 E-G]
4·3. Regulations made by the Board under section 36 are in the nature
of stalutory rules _and they have the full rigour and force of sub-ordinate
legislation made by a delegate duly
empowered in that behalf by the
legislature. [49 D-E]
Sophy Kelly v. The State, 69 Bombay, L.R. 186 overruled.
5:1. The provisions contained in a statutory enactment or in rules/
regulaticns framed thereunder have to be so construed as to be in harmony
with each other and where under a specific section or rule a particular
subject has received special treatment, such special provision will exclude
the applicabiliiy of any general provision which might otherwise cover the
B
c
D
said topic. [52 B·C]
E
5:2. Regulation 102(2), if properly construed in the setting in "Yhicb
it occurs only confers a suo f!!O!u power on the Divisional Board to amend
the result of the examination in respect of any candidate or candidates on
its being found that such resulr has been affected by error, malpractice,
fraud, improper conduct, etc. The error referred to in the said provision h:u1
in the context to be understood as being limited to an errora rising in con<>equcncc of malpractic{', fraud, improper conduct or other similar matter of
whatsoever nature.
Clauses (t) and (3) of Regula\ion 104 must be read
together and not in isolation. Clause (3) of regulation 104 contains is fact a
mandate to the Divisional Boards to treat the answer books and documents
as confidential and lays down that no candid:Lte shall be entitled to claim
disclosure or inspection of the said confidential books and docum.ents.
Therefore, the High Court ought not to have invoked the doctrine of
i1nplicd power and obligation, in the instant case, for the purpose of holding
that bec::use the right of verification has been conferred in clause (1) of
regulation 104, there is an implied po\ver in the examinees to demand
di~closure and inspection and a corresponding implied obligation on the
p.irt of the Board 10 cause such a demand. [52 c.o, H; 53 A; C·D]
\
F
G
H
A
34
SUPREME COURT REPORT~
(1985] 1 S.C.R.
5:3. Unless it can be said that a bye-law is manifestly unjust,
capricioUSj inequitable or partial in i·s operation, even a bye-law cannot be
struck down by a Court on the ground of unreasonableness merely because
the Court thinks that it goes further than is necessary or that it does not
incorporate certain provisions which, in the opinion of the Court, would
have been fair and wholesC'me. The responsible representative body eat rusted
B
with the power to make bye.Jaws must ordinarily be presumed to know
what is necessary, reasonable, just and fair. The Court should be extremely
reluctant to substitute its opinions and views as what is wise, prudent and
proper in relation to academic n1atters in preference to those formulated by
professional men possessing _technical expertise and rich experience of actual
c
D
E
F
G
H
day-to-day working of educational instit~tions and the departments controlling
them. The Court cannot make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to
the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root
problems inVolvrd in the working of the system and unmindful of the
consequences which would emanate, if a purely idealistic view as opposed
to a pragmatic one were to be propounded The Court shoi.lld also, as far
as possible, avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision,
rule or bye-law which would bring about the result of rendering the system
unworkable in practice. (53 F-H; 55 A]
Trustees of the Port of Madras v. Aminchand Pyarelal and Ors. [19 76]
SCR 721 referred to.
Kruse v. John;on [1898] 2 Q.B. and Slattery v. Naylor [1888] i3 A.C.
446 quoted with approval.
6: J. \Vhat constitutes fair play depends. upon the facts and circumstances relating to each particular given situation. If it is found that every
possible precaution has been taken and all necessary safeguards provided to
ensure that the answer books inclusive of supplements are kept in safe
custody so as to elirninale the danger of tbeir being tampered with and that
the evaluation is done by the examiners by applyiQ.g unifonn standards
with checks and cross checks at different stages and lhat measures for
detection of malpractice, etc. have also been effectively adopted, in such
cases, it will not be correct on the part of the Courts to strike down the
provisions prohibiting revaluation on the ground that it violates the rules of
fair play. Furtht:r, the candidates have taken the examination with full
awareness of the provisions contained in the regulations and in the declara ..
tions made by them in the form of application for admission to the examina ..
tion they have solemnly stated that they fully agree to abide by the
regulations issued by the Board. [59 A·C; 60 F-G]
6:2. That the University of Bombay and some other Universities have
•
-
'
-
-·
STATE EPN. BOARD I'. KUMARSHET!l (B. Eradi, J.)
35
made provisions
permitting candidates to demand revaluation, has little
A
relevance for the purpose of deciding about the legai validity of the
impugned regula,tions framed by the Board.
Io the public interest, the·
results of public cxan1inJtions published should have some finality attached to
them. If inspection, verification, in t~e presence of the candidates and
and revaluation are to be allowed as of right it may lead to gross delays and
indefinite uncertainty pnrticularly in regard to the relative ranking etc. of
the candidates, besides leading to utter confusion on account of the enormity
of the labour and time involved in the process. [60 H; 61 A-D]
CIVIL APPEL.LATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 1653 to
1691 of 1980
Appeals by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated
the 28th & 29 July, 1980 of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition
Nos. 1906, 1772, 1799, 1838, 1885, 1923, 1925, 1926,1928, 1996-1998,
2005, 2060-65, 2076, 2099-2102, 2110, 2127, 1909, 1864, 1965, 1889,
1890, 1924, 1927, 2003, 2044, 2098, 2176, 2177, 2178 and 2179 of
B
c
~W
D
R, P. Bhatt, So/i J. Sorabjee, Ravi Kulkarni, Ravinder Narain,
A. N. Hasker, D. N. Misra and Mrs. A. K. Verma for the Appellants.
S. S. Khanduja and Satya Prakash for the Respondents.
Dr. N. M. Ghatate for Respondent in CA. 1658/80.
P. H Parekh and Miss Nisha Shrivastava for Respondents in
CA. Nos. 1659 and 1684 of 1980.
11
V. N. Ganpule and Mrs. V. D. Khanna, for Respondent in CA.
F
1685 of 1980.
The Judgment of the Conrt was delivered by
BALAKRISHNA ERAPI, J. It is common experience that whenever
the results of Public examinations conducted by School Boards and
Universities or by other bodies like the Public Service Commission
a, e announced, amidst the rejoicings of successfull candidates who
have secured the grade of marks anticipated by them, it also inevitably brings with it a long trail of disppointmen!s and frustrations. as
the direct outcome of the non-fructu1tion of hopes and expectations
harboured in the minds of the examinees based on the candidates
o\vn assessment of their performance and merit.
Labouring under
a feeling that there has not been a proper evaluation of their perforG
H
A
B
c
D
E
J!
G
36
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1985) ! S.C.R.
mance in the examination, they would naturally like to have a revaluation of the answer books and even a personal inspection and
verification of the answer books for finding out whether there has
been a proper evaluation of the answers to all questions, whether
the totalling of marks has been correctly done and whether there
has been any tampering with the scat numbe" written on the answer
books and the supplementary sheets. The question canvassed before
us in these appeals is whether, under law, a candidate has a right to
demand such an inspection, verification and revaluation of answer
books end whether tho statutory regulations framed by the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education
governing the subject insofar as they categorically state that there
shall be no such right can be said to' be ultra vi res, unreasonable
and void.
A number of such disappointed candidates who had appeared
for the Higher Secondary Certificate and Secondary School Certificate public examinations conducted by the Divisional Boards
functioning under the supervision and control of the Maharashtra
State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education-hereinafter called 'the Board' -filed a batch of 39 Writ Petitions in the
High Court of Bombay challenging the validity of Regulation 104
(3) of the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education
Boards Regulations 1977 and,seeking the issuance of writs directing
the Board appellant herein-to allow to the petitioners disclosure and
inspection of their answer books in the Public examination, the
results whereof had already been published and to conduct a revaluation of such of the answer papers as the petitioners may demand
after the inspection. The High Court divided the Writ Petitions into
two groups, the first group consisting of cases where the right of
inspection.alone was claimed and the second group comprising of
cases where the petitioners had claimed also the further right to
demand a revaluation of the answer papers. Though all the Writ
Petitions were heard together by a Division Bench consisting of
V. s. Deshpande and V. A. Mohta, JJ, the two groups were disposed
of by separate judgments delivered on behalf of the Bench on the
same day-28th July 1980. The first group of Writ Petition• was
disposed of by a judgment delivered by Deshpande, J speaking on
behalf of the Division Bench. Therein it was held that clause (3)
of Regulation 104 which lays down that no candidate shall be entitled
to disclosure or inspection of the answer books or other documents
as these are to be treated as most confidential is ultra vires on th~
'
\
-
S'fATE EDN. llOARD v P.il. KUMARSHETH (B. Eradi, J.)
37
ground of its being in excess of the regulation-making power of the
Board.
In the opinion of the Divisio;; Bench, the said provision
cannot be said to serve any purpose of the Act, but is, on the
contrary, "defeasive" of the same. It was further held that the
impugned clause (3) of Regulation 10.4 to the extent to which it
prohibits disclosure and inspection of the answer books and other
connected documents on the ground of confidentiality is unreasonable
and liable to be struck down on that ground also.
Accordingly, the
High Court declared clause (3) of Regulation 14 to be void and
allowed the flr.;t group of Writ Petitions by dire.cting the Board to
allow inspection of the answer books asked for by the petitioners
and to take consequential action under clauses (4) to (6) of Regulati n 104 when found necessary.
The main judgment in the second group of Writ Petitions was
delivered by Mohta, J, holding that the provision contained in clause
([) of Regulation I 04 that no revaluation of the answer books or
supplement shall be done is ultra vires the regulation-making power
conferred by Section 36 and is also illegal and void on the ground
of its being manifestly unreasonable.
In the view of the learned
Judge, inspection and disclosure will serve no purpose in case the
further right of revaluation was denied and inasmuch as the right to
disclosure and inspection had been recognised by the judgment
just then delivered in the first group of Writ Petitions, the conclusion had necessarily to follow that the Board was obliged to permit
revaluation as well. On this reasoning, Regulation 104 (!) insofar as it prohibits revaluation was declared void and a direction
was issued to the Board that in the case of those examinees
who had applied for reva1u~tion, such facility should also be allowed.
By a separate judgment, Deshpande, J, expressed serious doubts and
reservations as to whether a further right of revaluation could be
spelt out from the rc3ulations, but finally agreed with the conclusion
expr.:ssed by his colleague stating thus : "rather than allow my doubts
to prevail and dissent, I prefer to agree with him in the above
circumstances". Aggrieved by these judgments rendered in the two
groups of cases, the Board has preferred these appeals before this
Court after obtaining special leave.
The Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Boards
Act, 1965 (for short, "the Act") has ooen passed to provide for the
establishment of a State Board and Divisional Boards to regulate
certain. matters pertaining to secondary and higher secondary educat10n m the State. Section 3 (1) provides that the State GoyernA
B
c
D
E ,
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
38
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1985) l s.c.R.
ment shall, by notification in the official gazette, establish a Board
for the whole State by the name 'Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary and Higher Secondary Education'. By sub-section (2) of
the same Section, it is further provided that the State Government
shall, likewise, establish a Board for each of the three divisions
under such name as may be specified in the notiJ1cation.
The appellant Board is the State Board constituted under sub-section ll) of
Section 3.
The powers and duties of the State Board have been enumerated in clauses (a) to (r) of Section 18 of the Act. Clause (a) states
that it shall be the duty of the Board to advise the State Government on matters of policy relating to Secondary or Higher Seconda1y
education in general. Thus under the scheme of the Act, the Board
is to discharge an important role in fornmlating policies on all
matters relating to Secondary and Higher Secondary education.
Clause (f) empowers the Board to prescribe the general conditions
governing admission of regular and private candidates to the final
examination and to specify the c•mditions regarding the attendance
and character on the fullilment of which a candidate shall have a
right to be admitted to and to appear at any such examination.
Section 19 deals with the powers and duties of a Divisional
Board. Under clause (f) it is the duty of the Divisional Board to
conduct in the area of its jurisdiction the final examination Jn
behalf of the State Board.
Clause (g) empowers the Divisional
Board to appoint paper setters, translators, examiners, moderators,
supervisors and other necessary personnel for conducting the final
examination in tho area of its jurisdiction, for evaluation of candidates' performance and for compiling and release of the results in
accordance with such instrnctions as the State Board may from time to
time issue. Under clause (h) it is within the power of the Divisional
Board to admit candidates for the final examination according to the
regulations made by the State Board in this behalf. Clause (m)
vests the Divisional Board with power to generally evaluate the
performance of students in all examinations in secondary schools and
junior colleges including the final examination and make necessary
recommendations to the State Board in that behalf.
Section 36 (1) of the Act empowers the State Board to make
'regulations' for the purpose ·of carrying into effect the provisions of
tbe Act.
Sub-section (2) states that, without prejudice to generality
of the foregoing power, such regulations may provide for any of the
,.
''
\
+-
-
•
•
-
STATE EON. BOARD v. P. D. KUMARSHEnI (B. Eradi, J.)
39
m:1tters enumerated in clauses (a) to (n) thereof.
Clauses (c), (d),
1f) and (g) which alone are relevant for ou1 present purpose are
reproduced below :-
"(c) the general conditions governing admission of
regular and private candidates for the final examinations,
and any particular conditions regarding attendance and
character, on the fulfilment of which a candidate shall have
a right to be admitted to and to appear at any such
examination;"
"(d) the marks required for passing in any subject and
the final examination as a whole, and for exemption, credit
,
and distinction in any subjecl;''
"(f) the arrangements for the conduct of final examinations by the Divisional Boards and publication of
results;"
'\g) the appointment of examiners, their powe1s and
duties in relation to the final examinations and their
re1nuneration;'
1
Sub·scction (3) lays down that no regulation made under this
section shall have effect until the same has been sanctioned by the
·State Government.
Section 38 has conferred on the State Board a distinct power
to make 'bye-laws' consistent with the Act and the regulations made
thereunder. Such bye-laws are to proyide for the procedure to be
followeJ at the meetings of the Board and the Divisional Boards
and the Committees appointed by any of them and the numbers of
inc1nbers required to form a quorum at such meetings and any other
matters solely concerning the Boards and their Committees not
provided for by the Act and the regulations made thereunder.
Three Divisional Boards have been set up in Maharashtra by
the State Government in exercise of the power conferred by Section
3'and these Boards are in charge of the Poona Division, Aurangabad
Division and Vidharbha Division respectively. These three Divisional JJoards conduct two public examinations, namely, the Higher
Secondary Certificate examination-"H.S.C. examination"-which is
conducted at the end of the higher secondary education course and
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
.G
H
4()
SUPREME COiJRt REPORTS
(198)] 1 S.C R.
the Secondary School Certificate examination-" S.S.C. examination"-conducted at the end of the secondary school education
course.
In exercise of the nowers conferred by Section 36 of the Act,
the State Board has framed the Maharashtra Secondary and H'gher
Secondary Education Boards Regulations 1977. These regulations
were sanctioned by the State Government under sub-section (3) of
Section 36 and were published on the 11th July, 1977. They are to be
deemed to have come into force on 15th June 19 77. These regulations
were applied to the Secondary School Certificate examination and
Higher Secondary Certificate examination held in October, 1977 and
thereafter. The regulations consist of 3 parts. Part I contains the
provisions common to Secondary School Certificate (S.S.C.) and
Higher Secondary Certificate (H.S.C.) examinations; Part II contains
regulations pertaining to S.S.C. examination only and Part III those
pertaining exclusively to the Higher Secondary Certificate examination. Regulation 104 with which we are concerned occurs in Part llI
and clauses (1) to (3) thereof which alone are relevant for the
purposes of this case require to be reproduced here :
"104. VERIFICATION OF MARKS OBTAINED BY A
CANDIDATE IN A SUBJECT.
(I) Any candidate who has appeared at the Higher
Secondary Certificate examination may apply to
the Divisional Secretary for verification of marks
in ahy particular subject. The verification wiil be
restricted to checking whether all the answers
have been examined and that there has been no
mistake in the totalliug of marks for each question
in that subject and transferring marks correctly
on the first cover page of tho answer-book and
whether the supplements attached to the answer
book mentioned by the candidate are in tact. No
revaluation of the answer-book or supplements
shall be done.
(2) Such an application must be made by the candi·
date through the head of the junior college which
presented him for the examination, within two
weeks of the declaration of the examination results
r
StAtE El:JN. BOARD v. P. il. KUMARSHETH (B. Eradi, J.)
41
and must be'accompanied by a fee of Rs. 10/- for
A
each subject.
(3) No candidate shall claim, or be entitled to revaluation of his answers or disclosure or inspection of
the answer-books or other documents as these are
treated by the Divisional Board as most confidential.''
Before the High Court, the W r; t Petitioners had based their
challenge against the validity of clauses (l) and (3) of Regulation
104 on three main grounds. The first ground of attack was that the
impugned clauses were violative of the principles of natural justice.
Secondly, it was urged that both clauses (I) and (3) were ultra vires
and void on the ground of their being in excess of the regulationmaking powers conferred on the Board by Section 36 of the Act.
The third ground of challenge was that the impugned provisions
contained in clauses ( l) and (3) were highly unreasonable and since
the regulations framed by the Board are in the nature of bye-laws,
they are liable to be struck down on the ground of unreasonableness.
Though the main plank of the arguments advanced on behalf
of the petitioners before t.he High Court appears to have been the
plea of violation of principles of natural justice, the said contention
did not find favour with the learned Judges of the Division Bench.
The High Court rejected the contention advanced on behalf of the
petitioners that non-disclosure or di<allowance of the right of inspection of the answer-books as well as denial of the right to ask for a
revaluation to examinees who are dissatisfied w;th the results visits
them with adverse civil consequences. The further argument that
every adve.se "verification" involves a condemnation of the examinees behind their back and hence constitutes a clear violation of
principles of natural justice was also not accepted by the High Court.
In our opinion, the High Court was perfectly right in taking this
view and in holding that (the "process of evaluation of answer
papers or of subsequent verification of marks" under clause (3) of
Regulation 104 does not attract the principles of natural justice since
no decision making process which brings about adverse civil consequences to the examinees in involved. The principles of natural
justice cannot be extended beyond reasonable and rational limits and
cannot be carried to such absurd lengths.as to make it necessary that
candidates who have taken a public examination should be allowed
to participate in the process of evaluation of their performances or
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
I>
E
F
G
H
42
SUPREME COURT REPoRtS
[J 985] 1 S.C.R•
to verify the correctness of the evaluation made by the examiners by
themselves conducting an inspection of the answer-books and determining whether there has been a proper and fair valuition of the
answers by the examiners
As succinctly put by Mathew, J in his
judgment in the Union of India v. M.L. Kapur, (1), "it is not
expedient to extend the horizon of natural justice involved in the
Audi alteram partem rule to the twilight zone of mere expectations,
however great they might be". The challenge levelled against the
validity of clause (3) of Regulation l.J4 based on the plea of violation of natural justice was, therefore, rightly rejected by the High
Court.
The High Court in its judgment in the first group of cases then
went on to consider the next two grounds of challenge put forward
by the petitioners. namely, that clause (3) is ultra vires on the ground
of its being in excess of the regulation making powers of the Board
and that in any event it is void on the ground of unreasonableness.
Both'these grounds of challenge were upheld by the High Court and,
in consequence thereof, clause (3) of Regulation 104 has been struck
down by the learned Judges as illegal, ultra vires and void. After
giving our careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel appearing on both sides, we have unhesitatingly
come to the conclusion that the view so taken by the High Court is
wholly erroneous and unsustainable.
We shall first take up for consideration the contention that
clause (3) of Regulation 104 is ultra vires the regulation-making
powers of the Board. The point urged by the petitioners before the
High Court was that the prohibition against the inspection or disclosure of the answer papers and other documents and the declaration made in the impugned clause that they are "treated by the
Divisional Board as confidential documents" do not serve any of the
purposes of the Act and hence these provisions are ultra vires. The
High Court was of the view that the said contention of the retitioners .had to be examined against the back-drop of the fact
disclosed by some of the records produced before it that in the past
there had been a few instances where some students possessing inferior merits had succeeded in passing off the answer papers of other
brilliant students as their own by tampering with seat numbers or
otherwise and the verification process contemplated under Regulation 104 had failed to detect the mischief. In our opinion, this
(I) [1974] 1 S.C.R. 797.
STATE EON. BOARD I'. P. B. KUMARSHETH (B. Eradi, J.)
43
approach made by the High Court was not correct or proper because
the question whether a particular piece of delegated · Jegislationwhether a rule or regulation or other type of statutory instrument-is
in excess of the power of subordinate legislation conferred on the.
delegate has 'to be determined with reference only to the specific
provisions contained in the relevant statute conferring the power to
make the rule, regulation, etc. and also the object and purpose of
the Act as can be gathered from the various provisions of the enactment. It would be wholly wrong for the court to substitute its own
opinion for that of the legislature or its delegate as to what principle
or policy would best serve the objects and purposes of the Act and
to sit in judgment over the wisdom and effectiveness or otherwise of
the policy laid down by the regulation-making body and declare a
regulation to be ultra vires merely on the ground that, in the view
of the Court, the impugned provisons will not help to serve the
object and purpose of the Act. So long as the body entrusted with
the task of framing the rules or regulations acts within the scope of
the anthority conferred on it, in the sense that the rules or regulations made by it have a rational nexus with the object and purpose
of the Statute, the court should not concern itself with the wisdom
or efficaciousness of such rules or reg,tlations. It is exclusively within
the province of the legislature and its delegate to determine, as a
matter of policy, bow the provisions of the Statute can best be implemented and what measures, substantive as well as procedural would
have to be incorporated in the rules or regulations for the efficac.ous
achivement of the objects and purposes of the Act. It is not for the
Court to examine the merits or demerits of such a policy because
its scrutiny has to be limited to the question as to whether the
impugned regulations fall within.the scope of the regulation-making
power conferred on the delegated by the Statute. Though this legal
position is well·established by a long series of decisions of this
Court, we have considered it necessary to reiterate it in view of the
manifestly erroneous approach made by the High Court to the
consideration of the question as to whether the impugned clause (3)
of Regulation 104 is ultra vires. In the light of the aforesaid princi·
pies, we shall now proceed to consider the challenge levelled against
the validity of the Regulation 104 (3).
As already noticec\, the power to make regulations is conferred
on the Board by Section 36 of the Act.
Sub-section (l) of the said
Section lays down that the Board may make regulations for the
purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act. Sub·
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
11
44
SUPREME cot!Rt REPOltts
tl985] I s.c.k.
section (2) enumerates, in clause (a) to (n) the various matters for
which the provisions may be made by such regulations, the said
enumeration being without prejudice to the generality of the power
conferred by sub-section ( [).
We have already extracted clauses
(c), (d), (f) and (g) which deal with the conditions governing
admission of candidates for the final examinasions, the arrangement
for the conduct of final examinations by the Divisional Boards and
for publication of results, and the appointment of examiners, their
powers and duties in relation to the final examinations, etc.
These
topics are comprehensive enough to cover the prescription of the
procedure for finalising the results of the examination based on the
evaluation of the answers of the candidates who have appeared for
the examinations, as well as the laying down of the restrictive provisions relating to verification of marks, prohibition against disclosure
and inspection of answer books and denial of any right or claim for
evaluation.