P.Sumangala v. Teacher Education Research and Training, College Road, Chennai-600 006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 09.11.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRUW.P.NO.18441 of 2009andM.P.NOs.1 to 3 OF 20091.P.Sumangala2.B.Pushba3.S.Nagalakshmi4.M.Vaitheki5.R.Nanthini6.S.Elavarasi7.R.Sudha8.K.Nithya9.M.Umapathi10.G.Amutha11.M.Nelavathi12.G.Indira13.P.Arul Mozhi14.K.Sathiya Kala15.V.Rajeswari16.S.Geetha17.P.Renuga Devi18.M.Saranya19.V.Yogaraj20.P.Padmavathy21.S.Baskar22.S.Prabhu.. PetitionersVs.1.The Director, Teacher Education Research and Training, College Road, Chennai-600 006.2.The Joint Director of Examination (Employees), College Road, Chennai-600 006.3.The Correspondent, Madha Teacher Training Institute, Thamarai Pulam, Vedharaniam (TK), Nagapattinam District... Respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for the issue of a writ ofcertiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to theimpugned order dated 05.06.2009 made in Na.Ka.No.032571/c-2/2008 bythe second respondent and to quash the same and consequently, directthe respondents to publish the examination results of the petitionersfor the academic year 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 for Diploma in TeacherTraining.For Petitioners : Mr.M.ChristopherFor Respondents : Mr.A.C.Manibharathi, GAORDERHeard both sides.2.The facts projected in the writ writ petition herein depictthe modus operandi of the Heroes of the films Vasool Raja MBBS(Tamil) and Munna Bhai MBBS (Hindi). One begins to wonder whether ouryouth gets ideas from the movies or the movies are portraying thereal life situations. While such debates may continue, thedegeneration to which the petitioners have descended to, will shockone and all. From gun wielding or knife holding examinees in somenorthern States, the present high-tech shift of their techniques mayreduce tension to the hall Supervisors. But nevertheless it is a newscourge afflicted in our educational campus. Such people are going tobe the teachers of tomorrow really chills our spines. 3.The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are asfollows:The 22 petitioners herein were students of third respondentMadha Teacher Training Institute at Vedaranyam and were undergoingcourse in Diploma in Teacher Education. They were sent for thediploma examination by their institute. The center for examinationwas fixed at the Government Girls Higher Secondary School atVedaranyam. The examinations were held on 27.06.2008. Before theywrote their examinations, they were informed by the Room Supervisorthat they should not keep cellphones inside the examination hall.However, the petitioners discarded the warning and kept theircellphones inside the examination hall.4.Subsequently, a Flying Squad visited the said center. Theflying squad came to know that the answers for the examination weresent by Short Message Service (SMS) to the cellphones held by theexaminees. The Room Supervisor had also confirmed the same. Thecellphones held by the examinees were also seized by the flyingsquad. The examinees have given written statements accepting thecharges. In the presence of the police officials, the cellphones werereturned to the examinees on the next day. In view of the flyingsquad's sudden inspection, the Chief Superintendent of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ examination center sent a report, dated 28.6.2008 to the secondrespondent. The second respondent based upon the said report issuedshow cause notices stating that keeping cellphones in the examinationhall despite it was prohibited and the exchange of answers throughSMS were clearly contrary to the examination rules. Therefore, interms of Chapter X of Teacher Training Examination Rules, appropriatepunishment should be given to them apart from cancelling thepermission to write further examination. They should also be debarredfrom writing their examinations for one more year. 5.The petitioners were asked to give show cause as to why thesaid punishment should not be imposed on them. The misconductscommitted by the examinees were accepted by them in their writtenstatements. The Room Supervisors have also confirmed the possessionof cellphones inside the examination hall. Therefore, the petitionerswere imposed with a punishment in terms of Diploma in TeacherTraining Education Examination Rule Part X, cancelling permission towrite examinations and also for one more year, they were debarred towrite examinations. Since the explanations offered by the examineeswere not satisfactory, the second respondent confirmed the earlierprovisional punishment. The permission granted to the petitioners towrite the examinations held in July, 2008 was cancelled and they weredebarred from writing examinations during the year 2009. It is thisorder the petitioners have challenged in this joint writ petition.6.The deponent to the affidavit is the first petitioner.According to her, they were writing first year examination on27.6.2008. The Hall Supervisor of the examination center obtainedtheir signatures in a plain paper, stating that he was receiving thesame in acknowledgment of cellphones, which were later handed over tohim. They were allowed to write examinations on the subsequent dates.They had completed the examinations and also completed their course.The petitioners were not aware of the proceedings initiated by thesecond respondent. The entire communication had taken place onlybetween the second and third respondents. The petitioners were notaware of the said communication. 7.It was stated that the petitioners were innocent. The 8thand 19th petitioners are not in possession of any cellphones. Theorders were passed mechanically. The signatures obtained by them werefor handing over the cellphones while entering the examination hall.The chief Superintendent of the center was the correspondent of therival institution. He had manipulated the records to defame the thirdrespondent's institution. They also stated that sufficientopportunities were not given before passing the final order. Noproper enquiry was held. 8.It was further stated that the flying squad which allegedlycaught the petitioners having cellphones did not give any writtencomplaint. The show cause notices were issued after five months after https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the date of examinations. Since no specific allegations relating toexamination malpractices of copying or circulating answers were setout in the show cause notices, the show cause notices were invalid. 9.When the matter came up on 23.10.2009, this Court directedthe learned Government Advocate to produce the original file.Accordingly, the original file was produced by the learned GovernmentAdvocate and perused by the court.10.It is seen from the original file that each of the examineehave written a letter to the Chief Superintendent of the examinationcenter, stating that when they were writing Educational Psychologypaper on 27.6.2008, they were in possession of cellphones (number ofwhich were mentioned in their letters). When the Hall Supervisorasked for the same, they did not part with them. At about 11.30 a.m.,the flying squad came and they were made to part with the cellphones.In that letter, the signatures of the squad members, ChiefSuperintendent cum Headmaster of the Girls Higher Secondary School,Vedaranyam were also found. Therefore, the allegation that they hadsigned blank papers does not stand to reason. Even in theexplanations, dated 20.4.2009 written by each of the petitioners, itwas stated that in order to write the examinations, they were stayingin Thennampulam- Shenbagarayanallur village. Their parents had giventhem the cellphones in order to know their whereabouts. On the dateof examination, the Hall Supervisor had told them if any one was inpossession of cellphone, it should be handed over to him.Accordingly, they had handed over cellphones. But, when the HallSupervisor was asked to return the cellphones, he asked us to receiveit from the Chief Superintendent of the Center. When the cellphoneswere asked, he had asked us to write a letter acknowledging thereceipt of cellphones. After writing such letters, they took back thecellphones. Some other examinees were concerned, they were not inpossession of any cellphone. 11.The allegation that the flying squad seized the cellphonesfrom the petitioners was contrary to truth. During that day, noflying squad visited the center. They were ignorant about the rulerelating to keeping cellphones inside the examination hall. Even thisexplanation is false and contrary to truth because the petitionershave given written acknowledgments, stating that they had keptcellphones in switch-off modes and when they were asked by the HallSupervisor, it was not given. Only when the flying squad came, thecellphones were given to them. Therefore, it is too late for thepetitioners to contend that either their signatures were obtained inblank papers or there was no flying squad on the relevant date orthat they had merely given letters acknowledging the receipt of theircellphones only. 12.It is seen that before imposing punishment, the respondentshad made a thorough analysis of the incident that took place inside https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the examination center. It was also stated that as many as 40cellphones were seized from the center before the beginning ofexamination. Thereafter, when the flying squad came, the totalcellphones received from the center became 60. In the presence ofpolice officials, the cellphones were returned to candidates. It wasalso stated that in the history of the examination department, suchcopying through cellphones had not taken place so far. When theanswer papers from the center was furnished, an analysis of some ofthe answer papers showed that even the answers which are writtenwrongly were scored off and correct answers were written over them,for which, one of the examinees paper was also shown and is provedthat there was copying through messages received in SMS. The ChiefSuperintendent and the Hall Supervisor have also confirmed thepossession of cellphones despite prior warning given by them. 13.It is also seen from Chapter X of the scheme for awardingof Higher Secondary Course certificate framed by the State Governmentthat punishments to be awarded to candidates resorted tomalpractices. Relevant portion in Chapter X reads as follows:Rules Serial Number Authority toand Offence impose punishment Scale of Punishment 4.A candidate FOUND Secretary, Board Cancellation of GUILTY of copying of Higher marks at the attempting to Secondary particular whole copy form the Examination, session of forbidden papers Madras-600 006. examination besides debarring him for the NEXT TWO examinations.14.These uncontroverted facts clearly shows that thepetitioners have attempted to hoodwink the authorities and havecontravened the rules meant for writing relevant examinations. Theattempt to prove that they were innocent and were not aware ofrelevant rules cannot be accepted. In the present case, each one ofthem have accepted that the Hall Supervisor had warned them fromhaving the cellphones inside the hall in which they wrote theirexaminations. They had also accepted the same in their explanationsgiven to the second respondent. The fact that contrary to thedirections they were in possession of cellphones itself is enough toimpose the punishment. It was unnecessary for respondents to provethat through SMS they got right answers to help to write theirexaminations. As to what should be the scope of an enquiry in suchcircumstances has been delineated by the Supreme Court in its variousdecisions.15.The Supreme Court vide its judgment in Maharashtra StateBoard of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. K.S. Gandhi https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ reported in (1991) 2 SCC 716 has held in paragraph 22 as follows:"22. From this perspective, the questionis whether omission to record reasons vitiates theimpugned order or is in violation of theprinciples of natural justice. The omnipresenceand omniscience (sic) of the principle of naturaljustice acts as deterrence to arrive at arbitrarydecision in flagrant infraction of fair play. Butthe applicability of the principles of naturaljustice is not a rule of thumb or a strait-jacketformula as an abstract proposition of law. Itdepends on the facts of the case, nature of theinquiry and the effect of the order/decision onthe rights of the person and attendantcircumstances. It is seen from the record and isnot disputed, that all the students admitted thefactum of fabrication and it was to his or heradvantage and that the subject/subjects in whichfabrication was committed belong to him or her. Inview of these admissions the Enquiry Officerobviously did not find it expedient to reiterateall the admissions made. If the facts aredisputed, necessarily the authority or the EnquiryOfficer, on consideration of the material onrecord, should record reasons in support of theconclusion reached. Since the facts are admitted,the need for their reiteration was obviated and soonly conclusions have been stated in the reports.The omission to record reasons in the presentcase is neither illegal, nor is violative of theprinciples of natural justice. Whether theconclusions are proved or not is yet anotherquestion and would need detailed consideration.16.Subsequently, the Supreme Court in CBSE v. Vineeta Mahajanreported in (1994) 1 SCC 6 held that if any slip of paper found inpossession of examinee pertaining to the examination by itself is amalpractice. In that case, a slip of paper was brought into theexamination hall was found in possession of an examinee whileexamination was going on. It was held that whether the examinee hadactually used the slip or not is not relevant as the rule stipulatedthat even possession of any notebook or notes or chits or any otherunauthorised materials pertaining to the examination paper will beconsidered as malpractice.17.Very recently, the Supreme Court vide its judgment in Dr.Ambedkar Institute of Hotel Management, Nutrition & CateringTechnology, Chandigarh v. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan reported in (2009) 1 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ SCC 59 took exception to the High Courts granting interim orders insuch matters on the basis of the personal view of a judge. Therelevant passages found in paragraphs 11 to 18 reads as follows:"11. Coming to the interim order of thelearned Single Judge dated 31-3-2006, it may benoted that in the very second sentence of theorder the learned Single Judge stated that therecord did not bear out whether the chit hadactually been used in the examination. As alreadynoted above, this was a wholly irrelevantconsideration. Once it is found that thechit/piece of paper contains material pertainingto the examination in question it amounts tomalpractice, whether the same was used by theexaminee or not.12. The learned Single Judge in the interim orderhas then emphasised on the fact that therespondent had apologised and had confessed tothe possession of the chit. In our opinion thisagain is a misplaced sympathy. We are of the firmopinion that in academic matters there should bestrict discipline and malpractices should beseverely punished. If our country is to progresswe must maintain high educational standards, andthis is only possible if malpractices inexaminations in educational institutions arecurbed with an iron hand.13. The learned Single Judge in the interim orderthen states “if we care to think back to ourstudent days, one would invariably recollectpreparation of such kind of slips for refreshingthe mind immediately before an examination, withno further intent to use it in an unfair orillegitimate manner”.14. Here again, we respectfully cannot approve ofthe above observation of the learned SingleJudge. A judge is supposed to keep his personalviews in the background and not inject them inthe judgments. What was done in his student dayswas surely irrelevant for deciding the case oreven passing an interim order. It is true thatseeing a slip of paper before commencement of theexamination is not a malpractice, but in thepresent case we are concerned with its use duringthe examination and not before the examination.Hence we fail to see how the above observation ofthe learned Single Judge could be justified. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

15. The learned Single Judge has then directedthe institution to allow the respondent toreappear in the forthcoming “Front Officeexamination”. In our opinion, this again waswholly illegal. As noted in Rule 9.2 (quotedabove), even if a candidate has used unfair meansonly in one paper, he will be deemed to havefailed in all the papers. In the present case,the respondent no doubt was found with a slipof paper in the “Front Office examination” whichwas only one of the papers. However, in view ofRule 9.2 he will have to reappear in the entireexamination i.e. in all the papers, and notmerely in the Front Office examination.16. In view of the above, we are of the opinionthat the learned Single Judge was whollyunjustified in passing the aforesaid interimorder dated 31-3-2006.17. Thereafter in the final judgment dated 30-10-2006, the learned Single Judge directed theresult of the respondent to be declared forthwithfor the subject “Front Office” for which therespondent appeared in April 2006 pursuant to theinterim order dated 31-3-2006, and also todeclare the result of the respondent in othersubjects in which he appeared in 2005. Thelearned Single Judge was of the view that thepunishment imposed was disproportionate to theoffence, particularly since the respondent hadshown remorse and sought forgiveness.18. We are afraid we cannot agree with the viewtaken by the learned Single Judge. As alreadystated above, we have to be very strict inmaintaining high academic standards andmaintaining academic discipline and academicrigour if our country is to progress. Sympathyfor students using unfair means is wholly out ofplace.18.After castigating the judge in these words, the SupremeCourt laid warning to all courts in interfering with actions taken bythe educational authorities. The following passage found in paragraph27 may be usefully extracted below:"27. Before parting with this case, wewould like to refer to the decisions of this Courtwhich has repeatedly held that the High Courtshould not ordinarily interfere with the orderspassed in educational matters by domestic https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ tribunals set up by educational institutions videBoard of High School & Intermediate Education v.Bagleshwar Prasad (AIR 1966 SC 875) (vide AIR para12), J.P. Kulshrestha (Dr.) v. AllahabadUniversity (1980 (3) SCC 418) (vide SCC para 17 :AIR para 17), Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. KarnatakaUniversity (1986 Supp SCC 740) (vide SCC para 7 :AIR para 7). We wish to reiterate the view takenin the above decisions, and further state that theHigh Courts should not ordinarily interfere withthe functioning and orders of the educationalauthorities unless there is clear violation ofsome statutory rule or legal principle. Also,there must be strict purity in the examinations ofeducational institutions and no sympathy orleniency should be shown to candidates who resortto unfair means in the examinations.19.If viewed in this context, the 'Vasool Raja MBBS'techniques adopted by the petitioners can never be accepted by theCourt. On the other hand, in the interest of the future generationsof students such aspirants to teaching posts should be kept away fromthe Temples of Learning. The action taken by the authorities mustforewarn other examinees being attracted to adopt high-techaberrations. 20.In the light of the above, this writ petition will standdismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently,the connected miscellaneous petitions also will stand dismissed.vvkSd/Asst.Registrar /true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1.The Director, Teacher Education Research and Training, College Road, Chennai-600 006.2.The Joint Director of Examination (Employees), College Road, Chennai-600 006. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The Correspondent, Madha Teacher Training Institute, Thamarai Pulam, Vedharaniam (TK), Nagapattinam District.+ 1 CC to the Government Pleader SR.59687 ORDER IN W.P.NO.18441 OF 2009RJ(CO)VC(12.11.2009)