Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa and another Vs. Dyuti Prakash Das and another
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No2.1425-26 of 1993
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.13928 and 14684 of 1992)
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.13928 and 14684 of 1992)
Petitioner: Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa and another
Respondent: Dyuti Prakash Das and another
Apeal: Civil Appeal No2.1425-26 of 1993
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.13928 and 14684 of 1992)
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.13928 and 14684 of 1992)
Judges: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY & N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 26, 1993
Head Note:
EDUCATION
Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa – Hard Case Rule:
Clause 8 – Benefit of Hard case rule not extended to candidates whose paper/papers of examination have been cancelled for violation of examination rules – Whether clause (8) is ultra vires Regulation 117? – Held no – Appeals allowed.
Held:
Regulation 117 empowers the Examination Committee “to frame general rules giving benefit to hard cases” it is for the Examination Committee to decide in which hard case the benefit should be given. It cannot be said that clause (8) is unrelated to the object and purpose underlying the Regulation or that it is unreasonable. We are equally unable to agree that clause (8) amounts to inflicting double punishment. There is no punishment involved in this case. All that clause (8) says that the benefit of the Hard case Rules shall not be extended to candidates whose paper/papers of examination have been cancelled for violation of Examination Rules. It is only a case of refusing to extend the benefit to a certain category of candidates. We are unable to see any unreasonableness even herein. (Para 6)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Heard the counsel for the parties. Leave granted.
2. A common question arises in these two appeals. It is sufficient to refer to the facts in Civil Appeal No.1425 of 1993 (arising from SLP (C) No.13928 of 1992). The respondent appeared for the Higher Secondary Examination held by the Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa, in the year 1992. Results were published on 24.6.92. The respondent was declared to have failed. He then filed the Writ Petition in the Orissa High Court for declaring him successful in Second Division in the said examination. The Writ Petition has been allowed by a Division Bench with a direction to the Council of Higher Secondary Education “to apply the Hard case Rule to the petitioner and publish his result within one month hence.”
3. The respondent obtained 56 marks in English subject, which is four short of the requisite pass marks. Biology was his extra optional subject. The Centre where he appeared was found indulging in certain mal-practices in the Biology paper and accordingly the examination in that subject was cancelled from that centre altogether. It was also declared that no re-examination shall be held in that subject and that the results shall be published taking the marks in that subject as zero. The Respondents’ problem was that he had failed in English subject. He, therefore, wanted a direction to the authorities to award four grace marks in which event he would not only have passed the English subject but would also have passed the examination. The appellants, who are respondents in the Writ Petition, opposed the Writ Petition. They relied upon clause (8) of the Hard case Rules to deny any relief to the Respondent. Clause (8) reads as follows:
“The benefit of the above Hard case Rules shall not be extended to candidates whose paper/papers of examination have been cancelled for violation of examination rules”.
4. The appellants’ case was that inasmuch as the examination in Biology from the centre concerned was cancelled on account of violation of examination Rules (malpractices), the respondent cannot ask for any grace marks under the Hard case Rules. This argument was met by the respondents contending that the said Rule is ultra vires Regulation 117, under which it has been framed. Regulation 117 reads as follows:
“The Examination Committee shall be competent to frame general rules giving benefit to hard cases and such rules as framed by the Examination Committee need be intimated to Government from time to time.”
5. The High Court agreed with the respondents’ contention and declared that clause (8) is ultra vires Regulation 117 and that it also amounts to inflicting double punishment. The High Court found that the benefit of Hard case Rule has been illegally denied to the respondent and accordingly allowed the petition with the aforesaid direction.
6. The only question arising herein is whether clause (8) is outside the scope of Regulation 117. With great respect to the learned Judges of the Orissa High Court, we are unable to agree with them. Regulation 117 empowers the Examination Committee “to frame general rules giving benefit to hard cases” it is for the Examination Committee to decide in which hard case the benefit should be given. It cannot be said that clause (8) is unrelated to the object and purpose underlying the Regulation or that it is unreasonable. We are equally unable to agree that clause (8) amounts to inflicting double punishment. There is no punishment involved in this case. All that clause (8) says that the benefit of the Hard case Rules shall not be extended to candidates whose paper/papers of examination have been cancelled for violation of Examination Rules. It is only a case of refusing to extend the benefit to a certain category of candidates. We are unable to see any unreasonableness even herein.
7. For the above reasons the appeals are allowed. The Judgment and Orders of the Orissa High Court are set aside. No orders as to costs.
1. Heard the counsel for the parties. Leave granted.
2. A common question arises in these two appeals. It is sufficient to refer to the facts in Civil Appeal No.1425 of 1993 (arising from SLP (C) No.13928 of 1992). The respondent appeared for the Higher Secondary Examination held by the Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa, in the year 1992. Results were published on 24.6.92. The respondent was declared to have failed. He then filed the Writ Petition in the Orissa High Court for declaring him successful in Second Division in the said examination. The Writ Petition has been allowed by a Division Bench with a direction to the Council of Higher Secondary Education “to apply the Hard case Rule to the petitioner and publish his result within one month hence.”
3. The respondent obtained 56 marks in English subject, which is four short of the requisite pass marks. Biology was his extra optional subject. The Centre where he appeared was found indulging in certain mal-practices in the Biology paper and accordingly the examination in that subject was cancelled from that centre altogether. It was also declared that no re-examination shall be held in that subject and that the results shall be published taking the marks in that subject as zero. The Respondents’ problem was that he had failed in English subject. He, therefore, wanted a direction to the authorities to award four grace marks in which event he would not only have passed the English subject but would also have passed the examination. The appellants, who are respondents in the Writ Petition, opposed the Writ Petition. They relied upon clause (8) of the Hard case Rules to deny any relief to the Respondent. Clause (8) reads as follows:
“The benefit of the above Hard case Rules shall not be extended to candidates whose paper/papers of examination have been cancelled for violation of examination rules”.
4. The appellants’ case was that inasmuch as the examination in Biology from the centre concerned was cancelled on account of violation of examination Rules (malpractices), the respondent cannot ask for any grace marks under the Hard case Rules. This argument was met by the respondents contending that the said Rule is ultra vires Regulation 117, under which it has been framed. Regulation 117 reads as follows:
“The Examination Committee shall be competent to frame general rules giving benefit to hard cases and such rules as framed by the Examination Committee need be intimated to Government from time to time.”
5. The High Court agreed with the respondents’ contention and declared that clause (8) is ultra vires Regulation 117 and that it also amounts to inflicting double punishment. The High Court found that the benefit of Hard case Rule has been illegally denied to the respondent and accordingly allowed the petition with the aforesaid direction.
6. The only question arising herein is whether clause (8) is outside the scope of Regulation 117. With great respect to the learned Judges of the Orissa High Court, we are unable to agree with them. Regulation 117 empowers the Examination Committee “to frame general rules giving benefit to hard cases” it is for the Examination Committee to decide in which hard case the benefit should be given. It cannot be said that clause (8) is unrelated to the object and purpose underlying the Regulation or that it is unreasonable. We are equally unable to agree that clause (8) amounts to inflicting double punishment. There is no punishment involved in this case. All that clause (8) says that the benefit of the Hard case Rules shall not be extended to candidates whose paper/papers of examination have been cancelled for violation of Examination Rules. It is only a case of refusing to extend the benefit to a certain category of candidates. We are unable to see any unreasonableness even herein.
7. For the above reasons the appeals are allowed. The Judgment and Orders of the Orissa High Court are set aside. No orders as to costs.
