KULDEEP KUMAR PATHAK Vs. STATE OF UP AND ORS
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 11 of 2016, Judgment Date: Jan 05, 2016
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11 OF 2016
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 2964 OF 2015)
KULDEEP KUMAR PATHAK .....APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
A.K. SIKRI, J.
Leave granted. Matter is finally heard at this stage
itself with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The appellant herein appeared in the Intermediate Examination
conducted by Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P., Allahabad in the year 2002
and successfully cleared the said examination. On that basis, he pursued
the Graduation and passed Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) in the year 2005.
Thereafter, he even successfully completed his Post-Graduation course i.e.
Masters of Arts (M.A.) in the year 2007 with a desire to pursue further
studies. He even joined LL.B. course and successfully cleared LL.B.
examinations also in the year 2011. He had the ambition to get himself
enrolled as an Advocate so as to pursue the legal profession. However,
before he could do that, respondent-authorities inflicted upon him a big
blow in the form of canceling his intermediate results of the year 2002
which examination was conducted by Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad.
Order to this effect, without putting the appellant to any notice and
without affording any opportunity of hearing, was passed nine years after
the said exam with the direction to confiscate his Certificate. The effect
of the aforesaid action of the respondent was not only take away the result
of the Intermediate Examination, but it also nullified further courses
which he had pursued and passed in the meantime.
3. The reason for canceling the said examination by the Regional
Secretary, U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Examination
(hereinafter referred to as the 'U.P. Board'), Varanasi was that the
appellant had simultaneously appeared in two examinations, one of the U.P.
Board and other of Sanskrit Board with respect to Class X and equivalent
examination and it was not permissible for the appellant to appear in two
examinations conducted by two different Boards simultaneously.
4. The appellant, aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated April 20, 2011
passed by the Regional Secretary, Intermediate Education Board, Varanasi
(respondent No. 3), preferred a representation dated May 10, 2011 before
the Director, Education (Secondary), Lucknow (respondent No. 2). This
representation was also addressed to respondent No. 3. Request was made to
both respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to allow him to present his case and give him
an opportunity of hearing. However, nothing was heard on this
representation and instead consequential orders dated May 18, 2011 were
passed giving effect to earlier orders dated April 20, 2011, thereby
confiscating the Certificates of Award in favour of the appellant.
5. The aforesaid actions of the respondents forced the appellant to
challenge the said orders dated April 10, 2011 and May 18, 2011 before the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by filing a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge of the High
Court, however, dismissed the writ petition vide orders dated July 08,
2013. Intra-court appeal filed against the said judgment before the
Division Bench also met the same fate inasmuch as vide impugned judgment
dated January 22, 2014, the appeal of the appellant has been dismissed by
the Division Bench of the High Court, thereby affirming the orders of the
Single Judge. A perusal of the orders of the Single Judge as well as the
Division Bench would reflect that the courts below have gone primarily by
the fact that since the appellant admitted that he appeared in two streams
in two different Boards in the year 2000, this action on the part of the
appellant was contrary to the Regulations and, therefore, the orders
canceling the exam were rightly passed by the respondents.
6. Before us, Mr. Pradeep Kant, learned senior counsel for the appellant
has made a neat legal argument. He submits that though the impugned
judgment proceeds on the basis that appearing in two examinations
simultaneously for the same year is violation of the Regulations of the
Board, this reason given by the High Court is clearly unsustainable
inasmuch as no such Regulation is shown by the Board which prohibited any
such candidate to appear in two examinations in the same year. The learned
senior counsel further argued that the impugned order passed by the
respondents for confiscating his Certificate of Intermediate exam was,
otherwise also, contrary to the principles of natural justice inasmuch as
no show cause notice and opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant
before passing such an order, which was passed belatedly after a period of
nine years from the passing of the said examination by the appellant.
7. We are of the opinion that both the submissions of the learned senior
counsel are valid in law and have to prevail. The High Court has been
influenced by the argument of the respondents that simultaneous appearance
in two examinations by the appellant in the same year was 'contrary to the
Regulations'. However, no such Regulation has been mentioned either by the
learned Single Judge or the Division Bench. Curiously, no such Regulation
has been pointed out even by the respondents. On our specific query to the
learned counsel for the respondents to this effect, he expressed his
inability to show any such Regulation or any other rule or provision
contained in the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or Supplementary
Regulations of 1976 framed under the aforesaid Act or in any other
governing Regulations. Therefore, the entire foundation of the impugned
judgment of the High Court is erroneous.
8. It is also pertinent to note that the appellant's intermediate
examination and result thereof was not in question before the U.P. Board.
No illegality in the admission in that class has been pointed out by the
respondents. The alleged charge of simultaneously appearing in two
examinations, one of the U.P. Board and other of the Sanskrit Board, was
with respect to Class X and equivalent examination which did not relate to
admission in intermediate course. The only provision for canceling the
said admission is contained in Regulation (1) of Chapter VI-B. It details
the procedure for passing the order of punishment canceling intermediate
results and, inter alia, prescribes that a committee consisting of three
different members is to be constituted and entrusted with the
responsibility of looking into and disposing of cases relating to unfair
means and award appropriate penalty as specified in the Regulations itself.
However, there is no allegation of any unfair means adopted by the
appellant in the instant case and, therefore, that Regulation has no
applicability. Even otherwise, no such committee was constituted.
Therefore, having taken admission in Intermediate on the basis of past
certificate issued by a separate Board, which was recognised, and not on
the basis of the result of Class X of the U.P. Board, the appellant derived
no advantage from his examination of the U.P. Board while seeking admission
in Intermediate course. Thus, from any angle the matter is to be looked
into, the impugned orders dated April 20, 2011 and May 10, 2011 passed by
the respondents are null and void, apart from the fact that they are in
violation of the principles of natural justice.
9. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed with costs by quashing the
aforesaid impugned orders and reversing the impugned judgment of the High
Court. The appellant shall, accordingly, be entitled to all consequential
benefits.
.............................................J.
(A.K. SIKRI)
.............................................J.
(ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 05 , 2016.