Allahabad High Court Judgement

Allahabad High Court Judgement

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice at mail@myadvocates.club
JUDGEMENT HEADLINE : G.O. Dated23.12.2003 And 23.9.2006 Providing For Self Examination Centre In The High School And Intermediate Examinationsquashed.
JUDGEMENT TITLE : C/M. Shri Mohan Singh Inter College, Mathura And Another Vs. State Of U.P. And Others. On 15/12/2006 By Allahabad High Court
CASE NO : WRIT - C NO. 7339 OF 2006
CORAM : Hon'ble Shambhu Nath Srivastava,J.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

RESERVED


1. CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 7339 OF 2006

Committee Of Management Sri Mohan Singh Inter College Pali Dungra District Mathura And Others......................................Petitioners

Versus

State Of U.P. And Others........................................................Respondents.


2. CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 46461 OF 2006

Committee Of Management Sri Bahori Singh Yadav Inter College Ghabar Agsauli Hathras........................................................Petitioner

Versus

State Of U.P. And Others........................................................Respondents.

3. CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 54012 OF 2006

Committee Of Management Pt Lok Mani Sharma Inter College And Another....................................................................................Petitioners.

Versus

State Of U.P. And Others.....................................................Respondents.


4. CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 53414 OF 2006

Committee Of Management Sri Hardayal Singh Janhikari Inter College Aligarh..................................................................................Petitioners.

Versus

U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad And Others...........Respondents.

5. CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.31482 OF 2006

Km. Hemlata........................................................................Petitioner

Versus

State Of U.P. And Others....................................................Respondents.




HON. S.N. SRIVASTAVA,J.

Although The Facts Of All The Above Writ Petitions Are At Variance And The Writ Petitions Aforesaid Have Been Preferred For Reliefs Distinct From Each Other But The Common Question In The Foreground Relating To Propriety Of Self Examination System In The High School And Intermediate Examinations Conducted By The U.P. Board Of High School And Intermediate Constituted Under The Intermediate Education Act, 1920 Crystallizing From The Facts On Record, The Submissions Advanced Across The Bar And Also The Materials Available On Record Of Which Cognizance Has Been Taken By The Court, Has Necessitated Their Being Tagged Together For Composite Hearing.

1. Writ Petition No. 7339 Of 2006- This Writ Petition Has Been Preferred By The Committee Of Management Sri Mohan Singh Inter College Canvassing The Validity Of The Order Dated 22.12.2005 Whereby The Result Of Number Of Students Was Withheld. It Would Transpire From The Record That The Result Of Various Students Of The College Was Withheld Initially On The Allegations That The College Facilitated The Use Of Unfair-means And Mass Copying. The Genesis Of The Dispute Was A Complaint Made By Gram Pradhan The Essence Of Which Was That The Management And The Centre Superintendent Supplanted Answer Scripts. In The Consequent Enquiry Made By The Educational Authorities, The Result Of 320 Students Was Rescinded. The Precise Allegation Is That Upon A Deal Being Struck With Students, The Management And The Principal Of The College Actuated By Improper Motive Had Replaced Original Answer Scripts Of About 500 Students Using Unfair Practices. The Details Of Evidence Of Mass Copying In League With Principal And The Management Of The College Have Been Enumerated In The Counter Affidavit. The Relief Sought In This Writ Petition Is For A Writ Of Certiorari Quashing The Impugned Order And Also To Issue Mark-sheets To The Students.
2. Writ Petition No. 46461 Of 2006-This Writ Petition Has Been Filed By Committee Of Management Bahori Singh Yadav Inter College Hathras And The Relief Sought Is For Quashment Of The Order Dated 1.8.2006 Whereby The Institution Along With 35 Other Institutions Were Debarred For Holding Of Board Examination Conducted By The U.P. Board Of High School And Intermediate. The Next Relief Sought Is For A Writ Of Mandamus Commanding The Opp. Parties To Declare The Institution As Examination Centre For High School And Intermediate Examination, 2007. The Grievance In The Instant Petition Of The Petitioner Is That There Was No Complaint Nor There Is Any Allegation Of Facilitating Unfair-means And Yet The Institution Was De-listed From Being Centre For Conducting Of High School And Intermediate Examination. It Would Appear That In The Supplementary Affidavit Filed By Petitioner In This Writ Petition, Institutions Have Been Enumerated Which Have Been Debarred From Conducting High School And Intermediate Examination As Centre For The Examination 2007 By The Impugned Order But Subsequently, Some Of Debarred Institutions Namely G.S.A.M. Girls Inter College Mursan, Harpyari Devi Inter College Rhai, Kanhiya Lal Inter College Dhasdatta, S.L.G.D. Inter College Bhukrala Which Had Been Declared For Being Not Fit For Examination Centre For The Period Of Three Years Were Re-crowned As Examination Centre Without There Being Any Valid Justification. Besides The Relief Aforesaid The Challenge Is To The Procedure As Well In Declaring A Institution Fit For Examination Centre.
3. Writ Petition No. 53414 Of 2006 Smt. Har Dayal Singh Janhikari Inter College Aligarh- In This Writ Petition, The Relief Sought Is For Quashing The Order Dated 31.7.2006 By Which Board Of High School And Intermediate Declared 227 Institution As Unfit For Being Declared As Examination Centre. The Challenge In This Petition Is Also To Policy As Well As To The Impugned Order Passed On Several Grounds.

4. Writ Petition No. 31482 Of 2006 Km. Hemlata V. State Of U.P. And Others. In This Writ Petition The Challenge Is To Examination Procedure On The Allegation That Central Supdt In League With Teachers And Invigilators In The Examination Centre Has Tried To Spoil Her Career With A Purpose To A Design And She Was Declared Having Flunked In Physics, Chemistry And English Papers. It Would Appear That She Initially Prayed For Issue A Writ Of Mandamus To Award Suitable Marks But Subsequently She Sought Amendment And Also Prayed For Relief Of Passing Appropriate Orders. In This Petition, She Also Assailed The Manner Of Procedure For Selecting An Institution For Being Centre For Examination Of High School And Intermediate Examination. She Also Assailed The Government Order Dated 29.9.2006 Fixed For 2007 Examination. The Challenge To The Impugned G.O. Has Been Made Which Was Issued On Similar Lines As To The G.O. For 2005 And 2006 Examination By Way Of Amendment.

From A Cumulative Reading Of The Facts On Record And Also What Transpires From The Submissions Made Across The Bar, It Would Appear That The Mal-practices/unfair Means Have Been Rampant On Large Scale In The Examination Centres Despite All Possible Corrective Measures And Safeguards Employed By The Government. The Large Scale Of Mal-practices/unfair-means Can Also Be Gauged From Various Petitions Which This Court Had Entertained In The Course Of Sitting In This Jurisdiction And Alarmed By The Facts Which Filtered To The Notice Of This Court, This Court By Means Of Order Dated 24.7.2006 Directed The Standing Counsel To Produce Report Of The Committee Constituted By The Lucknow Bench In Order To Look Into The Nexus If Any Amongst The College Authorities, Examination Superintendents Officials And Touts And Further Directed To Produce All The Complaints Relating To Unfair-means And Mal-practices In Different Colleges/schools Situated In The State Of U.P. By Means Of Another Order Dated 4.9.2006 This Court Again Directed To Make Available Complaints Containing Allegations Of Mass Copying Made In The Course Of Last Three Years In The Examinations Of High School And Intermediate From The Year 2004-05 Onwards. Accordingly, The Standing Counsel Though In Bits, Submitted List-enumerating Complaints Made To And By The Educational As Well As Other Authorities. The Court Also Directed To File List Of The Institutions, Which Received Recognition From The Government To Run High School Or Intermediate Classes Directly And Were Also Recognized As Centre For Holding Of High School And Intermediate Examination As A Result Of Recognition Given To These Institutions In Exercise Of Its Emergency Power Under Section 9 (4) Of The Intermediate Education Act For. This Court Further Directed The Standing Counsel To Make Available The Percentage Of Students Who Passed The High School/Intermediate Examination Immediately Before Coming Into Force The Self Centre Scheme And Also The Percentage Of Students Who Passed High School/Intermediate Examinations In The Last Three Years After Coming Into Force The Self Centre Scheme, The List Of Unaided Colleges Which Were Recognized By The State Directly And Were Approved As Centre For Holding Of High School And Intermediate Examinations Under The Self Centre Examination Scheme.

I Have Heard Sarvsri B.Singh, P.K.Shukla, P.K.Gupta, R.K.Ojha, Y.D.Sharma, Punit Kumar Appearing For The Petitioners And Sri S.M.A.Kazmi, Learned Advocate General Assisted By Sri S.P.Kesarwani And Sri B.N.Yadav, Standing Counsel Appearing For The Opp. Parties. I Have Also Heard Sri Rajesh Yadav On Behalf Of Unaided Recognized Colleges.

Considering The Materials On Record In The Main Writ Petition And Also In The Other Writ Petitions Tagged Together For A Composite Hearing On The Common Issue Relating To Rampant Mal Practices/unfair Means In The Conduct Of Examination Of High School And Intermediate And Also Complaint Of Mass Copying In Which There Appeared To Be Collusive Combination And Camaraderie At Various Level Amongst The College Authorities, Pressure Exerted By Local People Aided By Antisocial Elements, Superintendents Examination Centre, Staff And Teachers Of The Colleges Which Has Brought The Efficacy Of High School And Intermediate Examination System Into Disrepute And Taking A Serious View Of The Matter, This Court Considered It Appropriate To Issue Notice To The Learned Advocate General To Assist The Court In This Matter By Shedding Light On The Entire Details And Facts. The Order Dated 1.11.2006 Issuing Notice And Fixing 6th Nov 2006 Is Being Reproduced Below.


Hon. S.N. Srivastava, J.

Learned Standing Counsel Has Filed Short Counter Affidavit Annexing Some Of The Complaints Of Mass Copying. A List Of Schools Where Complaints Of Mass Copying Was Found Correct And The Institutions Debarred From Making Examination Centres As Well As Counter Affidavit Annexing List Of Newly Unaided Recognized High School And Intermediate Colleges Were Filed. Short Counter Affidavit And The Counter Affidavit Filed By The State Are Taken On Record.

Government Orders Dated 29th September, 2005 And 5th October, 2005 Issued By The Special Secretary, U.P. Government And The D.O. Letter Dated 3rd October, 2006 Issued By The Secretary, U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh Produced Before The Court By The Learned Standing Counsel Are Taken On Record.

Heard Learned Counsel For The Parties.

Learned Standing Counsel Has Filed Supplementary Counter Affidavit Annexing Certain Complaints Of Mass Copying Pertaining To The Years 2004, 2005 And 2006 Examinations. It Transpires From The Record That Under Chapter VI Of Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Parishad Niyam Sangrah 1989-2003 (Amended Upto October, 2003) Examination Committee Of The Board Was Competent To Submit Recommendations For Examination Centres And The Recommendation Of The Examination Committee Shall Be Considered By The Regional Secretary On Consultation With The Concerned Regional Deputy Director Of Education. The Regional Deputy Director Of Education May Constitute A Committee Under His Chairmanship Consisting Of Concerned District Inspector Of Schools, Two Seniormost Principals Nominated By The Regional Deputy Director Of Education And Regional Inspectress Of Girls Schools. Similarly At The District Level, The District Inspector Of Schools Was Also Required To Constitute A Committee With District Inspector Of Schools As President And Two Seniormost Principals As Members. The Policy Of The State Government Was To Establish Examination Centres Objectively In Accordance With Law. There Was No Provision For Self-centre. It Transpires That By A Government Order Dated 19.10.2004, The State Of Uttar Pradesh Has Introduced Policy Of Self-centre For High School And Intermediate Examinations. That Policy Was Challenged By Way Of A Public Interest Litigation Filed By One Vishal Verma At Lucknow Bench Of This Court On A Number Of Grounds Including That The State Government Had Been Recalling Recognition Of The Institutions Having Less Than 20% Passing


results In The Examinations And Due To System Of Allotment Of Centres At The Same School, The Teachers And Management Are Indulging In Mass Copying For The Students Of Their Schools. There Were Other Grounds Also Taken In The Writ Petition Challenging The Government Order For Creation Of Self-centres In Those Institutions.

This Court While Deciding The Public Interest Litigation Held That There Must Be A Public Injury And Public Wrong Caused By Wrongful Or Ultra-vires Act Or Omission Of State Or Public Authority And Refused To Examine The Issue On Merits. A Part Of The Order Passed By The Division Bench Of The Lucknow Bench Of This Court Is Being Quoted Below:-

" Thus, We Are Not Inclined To Examine The Issue On Merit At This Juncture.

About 30 Lacs Students Are Appearing In The Examination Conducted By The Board. Practical Examinations Are Going On And The Written Examinations Are Scheduled To Be Held From 10th March, 2004. Impugned Order Was Passed On 22.12.2003, But Not A Single Student Or Parent Came Forward To This Court Challenging The Said Order On Any Ground Whatsoever. Undoubtedly, Some Of The Students And Their Parents May Be Down-trodden, Who May Be Called Little Indians, But As Students Come From All Strata Of The Society, Including The Creamy Layers, And Children Of Lawyers, Doctors, Bureaucrats And Technocrats Appear In Those Examination, It Cannot Be Assumed That All Of Them Were Incapable To Approach The Court Or Raise The Issue At Any Other Appropriate Forum. No Protest Had Been Made By The Parents-Teachers Association Of Any Of The Schools In The State. The Representatives Of The Teachers Association Have Chosen To Keep Mum, Nor The Representative Of The People In Legislature Raised The Issue On The Floor Of The House To Oppose The Same. Petitioner, The Self-appointed Guardian Of The Said 30 Lacs Students Approached This Court After 32 Days Of Passing Of The Order Impugned And Obtained The Interim Relief Which Created Uncertainty Regarding The Schedule Of The Examination In The Mind Of The Students And Disturbed Them. In Such Eventuality, It May Be A Case Of Disturbing The Students Appearing In The Examination Bringing The Case Before The Court Half-heartedly Without Being In A Position To Place Sufficient Material Required For Determining The Controversy. Such Practice Requires To Be Deprecated In View Of The Judgment Of The Hon'ble Apex Court In Re: Sanjiv Gupta , (1995) 3 SCC 619.


Be That As It May, Considering The Interest Of The Students Had Passed The Interim Order And The State Government Expressed Its Inability To Conduct The Examination In Time If The Order Impugned Is Quashed. This Court Had No Option But To Pass An Order To Protect The 30 Lacs Students From Uncertainty And Enable Them To Appear In Entrance Tests For Medical, Engineering And Other Courses In The Universities.

Shri Bhatia, Learned Advocate General Has Willingly Suggested That Instead Of 70% Invigilators, The State Be Asked To Have 80% Invigilators From The Outside Schools And There Must Be Co-superintendent Of The Center From Outside Along With The Principal Of The Said Institution, And They Both, Must Be Held Responsible For Conducting The Examination. It May Be Necessary To Provide Full Assistance To The Invigilators Coming From Outside That Some Invigilators Must Also Be There From The Self-center Itself.

Considering The Menace Of Mass-copying And The Magnitude Of Using Unfair Means By Students, We Are Of The View That Purpose Would Be Served And It Will Be In The Interest Of Justice That 90 Per Cent Of The Invigilators Along With Examination Superintendent Be Sent From Outside Schools And The Local Principal Shall Be There To Assist The Said Superintendent.

We Dispose Of This Writ Petition Directing The Respondents To Take Necessary Measures Immediately To Have 90% Of The Invigilators And Examination Superintendent From Outside Schools. The Principal Of The Local College Shall Assist The Said Superintendent. The Examination Must Be Conducted As Per The Schedule Already Fixed And The State Government Shall Ensure The Conducting Of The Examinations Fairly Taking All Possible Measures To Prevent The Use Of Unfair Means By The Students. This Policy Shall Not Apply Universally For Each And Every School And Decision Must Be Taken By The Board As In Which School The Policy Is To Be Adopted On Some Reasonable Grounds.

This Policy Should Be Reviewed By The State Government At An Early Stage For The Next Year As This Order Relates To Only For This Year And Shall Not Be Binding On Subsequent Examinations. As We Have Not Entered Into The Merit Of The Policy, The Quest Is Left Open. "

Division Bench Also Held That Since Fate Of About 30 Lacs Students Are Involved In The Examinations And Any Interference At This Stage Will Affect The A Large Number Of Students. Division Bench Also Taken Note Of Menace Of Mass Copying And Magnitude Of Unfair Means By The Students And Has Directed To Take Certain Necessary Measures In The Examinations To Prevent Use Of Unfair Means By The Students. It Was Further Observed By The Division Bench That This Policy Should Be Reviewed By The State Government At Every Stage In Next Year As This Order Relates To The Year 2004 Only And Shall Not Be Binding On Examinations Of Subsequent Years.

It Appears That Thereafter In The Year 2005, The Same Policy Was Allowed To Continue On The Ground That By Government Order Dated 29th September, 2005, The System Of Self Examination Centre Was Allowed To Continue. It Transpires That This Year Also The State Government Has Taken A Decision To Continue The Policy Of Self Examination Centre With Certain Modifications Relating To Disabled Students.

Learned Standing Counsel Has Produced Before Me A Letter Of Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Wherein It Has Been Stated That The Policy Of Making Centre In The Same Colleges Had Been Allowed To Continue For The Examination Of 2007 By Giving Some Directions Including That In The Unaided Colleges, The Board Shall Send Competent Teachers Having Clean Image For Conducting Examination.

In The Instant Writ Petition Filed By The Committee Of Management Shri Mohan Singh Inter College, Mathura, Though The Report Of The Superintendent Was That The Examination Started In Time And It Was Peaceful Without Any Mass Copying, But In The Counter Affidavit Filed By The State It Was Brought To The Notice Of The Court That The Copies Of The Students Indicate Mass Copying. The Handwriting In The Answersheet Of The First Paper And Second Paper Of The Same Examinee Was Found Different In A Number Of Cases. A Number Of Answersheets Were Found In Which There Was No Signature Of The Examinee. A Number Of Answersheets Were Found In Which More Marks Were Awarded Than The Marks Were Allowed To Be Awarded If Answersheets Were Examined Properly. It Was Also Found That A Number Of Answersheets Were Not Scribed. All These Facts Have Been Mentioned In The Counter Affidavit In Detail.

This Court After Looking Into The Matter Directed State Of U.P. To File Details Of The Institutions Involved In Mass Copying Pertaining To These Three Years And Accordingly The State Has Filed A Counter Affidavit And Has Also Filed A List Of The Institutions Where Mass Copying Was Reported And Found To Have Been Committed By The Students Out Of 6756, 7362 And 7874 In The Years 2004, 2005 And 2006. This Court Thereafter Directed To Furnish List Of Complaints Received Against Such Institutions Where Mass Copying Was Reported And Those Institutions Were Debarred From Making Self-centres. The Board Has Filed List Of Institutions Which Have Already Been Debarred Due To Complaints Of Mass Copying. List Is Also Available In Writ Petition Nos. 53414 Of 2006, Committee Of Management Shri Hardayal Singh Janhitkari Inter College, Sindhauli, District Aligarh V. Uttar Pradesh Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad, 46461 Of 2006, Committee Of Management Shri Bahori Singh Yadav Inter College, Ghabar (Agsauli), Hathras V. State Of U.P. And Others And 54012 Of 2006, The Committee Of Management, Pt. Lok Mani Sharma Inter College, Vazidpur Khair, Aligarh And Another V. The State Of U.P. And Others . Writ Petition No.31841 Of 2006, Km. Hemlata V. State Of U.P. And Others Is A Case Where Principal And Teachers Of The Self Examination Centre Were Involved In Spoiling The Future Of Certain Students Due To Malafide Intention.

From The Affidavit Filed By The Board Of High School And Intermediate, It Is Established That In The Self Examination Centre System A Number Of Such Institutions Were Found By The Inspecting Team And Competent Staff Where Mass Copying Was Done By Writing Questions And Answers On The Black Boards. It Is Further Clear From The Materials Supplied By The Board Of High School And Intermediate That At Most Of The Places Due To Pressure Of Local Guardians, The Mass Copying Was Done In Collusion With The Superintendent Of Self Examination Centre, Teaching And Non-teaching Staff Of Such Institution. At Several Places When Inspecting Team Seized Materials Of Mass Copying, Teaching And Non-Teaching Staff Forcefully Taken Away Those Materials. It Is Further Clear From The Various Complaints And The Orders Passed By The Educational Authorities That Due To The Local Pressure And Pressure Of Other Influential Persons Whose Wards Were Appearing In Examinations In Such Self Examination Centres, The Centre Superintendent, Invigilator And Other Inspecting Staff Became Helpless Against Such Local Pressures And They Were Also Attacked By Those Persons At A Number Of Places. The Materials Seized By The Inspecting Team Used In The Unfair Means Were Set At Fire By The Local Persons And Teaching And Non-Teaching Staff At Some Places. It Is Also Clear From The Materials On Record That There Were Very Few Instances Of Mass Copying When There Was No Policy Of Self Examination Centre And The Complaints Received In The Old System And Now The Number Of Complaints Of Mass Copying In Self Examination Centres Which Have Been Debarred By The Board Of High School And Intermediate Has Increased Manifold In Comparison To Earlier System. It Is Also Brought To The Notice Of This Court That In A Number Of Cases The Board Of High School And Intermediate Has Debarred The Self Examination Centre On The Complaint Of Mass Copying, But The Persons Having Interest In Those Institutions Got Their Self Examination Centre Restored From The Higher Ups Of The Education Departments Of The State Education Ministry. There Is No Effective Control Of The Education Authorities Of The State Over These Unaided Recognized Institution And They Are Being Made Self Examination Centre Without Any Hindrance. Various New Methods Have Been Adopted In The Self Examination Centres Which Is Detrimental To The Very Concept Of The Education And Attacks Very Concept Of The Education In Constitution. The Board Has Filed The List Of Only Those Institutions Which Have Been Debarred From Making Self Examination Centres.

A List Of The Unaided Recognized High School And Intermediate Colleges Pertaining To Three Years Has Also Been Filed By The State.

From The Materials On Record, It Transpires That Most Of The Institutions Recognized As Unaided High School And Intermediate Colleges Were Also Made Self-centres. There Is No Fee Structure Fixed By The State Government To Be Charged From Those Unaided Recognized Institutions. The Policy For Payment Of Salary To The Teachers And Other Employees Of Unaided Recognized Institutions Has Not Been Formulated By The State. So Far As Teachers Of These Self Financed Institutions Are Concerned, These Unaided Recognized Institutions Pay Salary To Their Teachers And Other Employees From Their Private Source. There Is No Law Relating To Fixation Of Salary To The Teachers And Other Employees Of These Institutions And Such Teachers And Employees Of These Unaided Recognized Institutions Are Treated As Skilled Labourers For The Purposes Of Payment Of Minimum Wages. There Is No Control Of The State Over Unaided Recognized Institutions In Regard To Fee Structures Or Salary Of Teachers. It Has Also Been Brought To The Notice Of The Court That After The Policy Of Self Examination Centre Has Been Introduced, The Tendency Of Mass Copying In Unaided Recognized Institution Has Increased. The Total Number Of Self Examination Centre Has Increased Manifold To The Earlier List Of Self Examination Centre. Earlier To The Policy Of Self Examination Centre Of Unaided Recognized Institutions, There Were Few Complaints Of Mass Copying, But Now The Affidavit Filed By The State Makes It Clear That List Of Such Institution Against Which Complaint Of Mass Copying Has Been Received Has Increased Enormously. This Is Besides The Complaints Of Unfair Means Used In Such Institutions. Complaints Of Using Unfair Means Against Such Institutions Are In Thousands.

This Court As Well As Apex Courts Has Taken Various Steps In Regard To Unaided Recognized Professional Institutions For Fixing Fee Structure, For Admission And For Examinations. For This Purpose Apex Court Has Constituted Committees Headed By Hon'ble Judges So Far As Unaided Professional Institutions Are Concerned. The Apex Court While Considering Education Policy Has Taken Steps To Preserve The Merit In Education System. It Is Also Important To Mention Here That The Stage Of Intermediate Education Is The Foundation Of Professional And Non-professional Education Including Engineering, Medical And Higher Medical Education Which Affects Future Of The Country And As Such In View Of Above Alarming Facts Borne Out From The Record Coupled With The Fact And Circumstances In The State Of Uttar Pradesh Where State Had Already Taken A Decision For Repealing Uttar Pradesh Unfair Means Act, 1998 And The Education Is The Basis Through Which Constitutional Democracy And Goal Could Be Achieved And Any Compromise With The Merit Of The Examination System Would Affect The Future Of The Country And Constitutional Democracy.

Above Facts And Materials On Record Make It Clear That The Mass Copying Has Taken A Shape Of Trade Or Business In The Examination Of High School And Intermediate In The State Of U.P. In Our Education System Due To Introduction Of Self Examination Centres In The Same Institutions And It Has Also Become Source Of Earning For Certain Persons In The Filed Of Education. The Concept Of Education Has Been Discussed By The Apex Court In P.A. Inamdar And Others V. State Of Maharasthra And Others, (2005) 6 SCC 537 Wherein It Has Been Observed That Education Is Continual Growth Of Personality, Steady Development Of Character, And The Qualitative Improvement Of Life. Education Is Training He Mind And Not Stuffing The Brain. Education Is National Wealth And Is Necessary To Be Maintained On Merits In The Interest Of Creating An Egalitarian Society To Enable The Country To Rise High And Face Global Competition. Paragraphs 87, 88, 89 And 90 Of The Judgment Of The Apex Court Are Being Reproduced Below:-

"87. Under Article 41 Of The Constitution, Right To Education, Amongst Others, Is Obligated To Be Secured By The State By Making Effective Provision Therefore. Fundamental Duties Recognized By Article 51-A Include, Amongst Others; Article 51-A(h) To Develop Scientific Temper, Humanism And The Spirit Of Inquiry And Reform; And Article 51-A(j) To Strive Towards Excellence In All Spheres Of Individual And Collective Activity So That The Nation Constantly Rises To Higher Levels Of Endeavour And Achievement. None Can Be Achieved Or Ensured Except By Means Of Education. It Is Well Accepted By The Thinkers, Philosophers And Academicians That If JUSTICE, LIBERTY, EQUALITY And FRATERNITY, Including Social, Economic And Political Justice, The Golden Goals Set Out In The Preamble To The Constitution Are To Be Achieved, The Indian Polity Has To Be Educated And Educated With Excellence. Education Is A National Wealth Which Must Be Distributed Equally And Widely, As Far As Possible, In The Interest Of Creating An Egalitarian Society, To Enable The Country To Rise High And Face Global Competition. "Tireless Striving Stretching Its Arms Towards Perfection" (to Borrow The Expression From Rabindranath Tagore) Would Not Be Successful Unless Strengthened By Education.
88. Education Is:
"....continual Growth Of Personality, Steady Development Of Character, And The Qualitative Improvement Of Life. A Trained Mind Has The Capacity To Draw Spiritual Nourishment From Every Experience, Be It Defeat Or Victory, Sorrow Or Joy. Education Is Training The Mind And Not Stuffing The Brain."
(see Eternal Values For A Changing Society, Vol.III-Education For Human Excellence, Published By Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay, At P.19)
"We Want That Education By Which Character Is Formed, ''strength Of Mind Is Increased, The Intellect Is Expanded, And By Which One Can Stand On One's Own Feet...The End Of All Education, All Training, Should Be Man-making. The End And Aim Of All Training Is To Make The Man Grow. The Training By Which The Current And Expression Of Will Are Brought Under Control And Become Fruitful Is Called Education." (Swami Vivekanand As Quoted Ibid., At P.20.)

89. Education, Accepted As A Useful Activity, Whether For Charity Or For Profit, Is An Occupation. Nevertheless, It Does Not Cease To Be A Service To Society. And Even Though An Occupation, It Cannot Be Equated To A Trade Or A Business.

90. In Short, Education Is National Wealth Essential For The Nation's Progress And Prosperity"

In Such A Situation Protection Of Merit In Education System And To Uphold Dignity Of Education Which Is National Wealth Should Be Maintained. After Considering The Government Orders Dated 29th September, 2005 And 5th October, 2005 Issued By The Special Secretary, U.P. Government And The D.O. Letter Dated 3rd October, 2006 Issued By The Secretary, U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh, Following Facts Came To The Notice Of This Court (i) After Introduction Of Self Examination Centre Complaints Of Mass Copying Have Increased Enormously And On Enquiry Number Of Colleges Where Mass Copying Was Found Correct Is Much More To The Earlier System, (ii) In Order To Give Protection From Mass Copying/copying, The Government Order Has Taken Care And Has Referred That Teachers Who Are Competent And Of Clean Image Should Be Appointed/deputed For Examination Purpose Without Disclosing The Fact Whether State Has Prepared Two Types Of Lists, Firstly, Of Qualified Teachers And Of Clean Image And Secondly The Teachers Who Do Not Have Clean Image, But There Is Nothing In The Government Order That What Are The Criteria Of Such Teachers Who Are Competent And Of Clean Image, And (iii) Whether State Has Appointed Unqualified Teachers Not Having Clean Image In High School And Intermediate Colleges.

The Apex Court Has Also Taken Note Of Two Categories Of Teachers In The Judgment Reported In (2003) 5 SCC, P. 200, Secretary, School Committee, Thiruvalluvar Higher Secondary School V. Government Of Tamil Nadu And Others. A Portion Of The Judgment Of The Apex Court Is Being Reproduced Below:-

"......The Role A Teacher Plays In Shaping The Career And Future Of A Student Needs No Great Emphasis. A Teacher Is Required To Remove Darkness And Ignorance From The Minds Of Students. But Present-day Experience Show That The Teachers Are Themselves Ill Equipped And Take Their Jobs Very Casually. No Doubt, There Are Exceptions And Those Teachers Who Belong To The Exception Category Are Trying Their Best To Make Up The Deficiency Of Their Brothers And Sisters In Service. In The Hands Of These Ill-equipped Teachers, The Destiny Of The Students Does Not Get Moulded In The Way It Ought To Be. The Centres Of Learning Are Becoming Trade And Money-marketing Business Centres. Welfare Of The Students Has To Receive Utmost Priority...."

From The Counter Affidavits Filed By The State, It Is Clear That In Unaided Recognized Institutions, The Principal Of The College Will Be The Centre Superintendent And Some Person From Outside Will Be Appointed As Additional Centre Superintendent. But The Complaints Of Mass Copying Which Were Found Correct Make It Clear That The Centre Superintendents Appointed From Outside Are Helpless Due To Local Pressure Which Prevails Over Them And They Are Not Able To Take Effective Steps To Prevent Mass Copying/copying Due To Local Pressure Of Guardians And The Elements Supporting The Mass Copying/copying. There Is Also No Provision To Curb The Mass Copying And The Protection Could Be Given To Such Deployed Outsider Staff So That They Could Effectively Control The Mass Copying/copying At Self Examination Centres.

In View Of The Facts That In Most Of The Unaided Recognized Institutions, Principals And Teachers Are Appointed Privately Without Any Fee Structure Or Without Any Salary Structure, Involvement Of Such Principals And Teachers In The Mass Copying/copying Polluting The Examination Which Is An Evil For Whole Society Is Clear. In Some Cases, Such Teachers Were Found Involved In The Activities Which Cannot Be Expected From A Teachers. It Is Also Important To Mention Here That The State Has Not Taken Note Of All These Facts Inspite Of The Fact That The Division Bench Of This Court Has Mentioned All These Facts While Disposing Of The Public Interest Litigation And Has Directed To Take A Fresh Decision For The Examination Of Subsequent Years. The Materials Brought To The Notice Of This Court Through The Affidavits Filed By The State Have Not Been Considered While Taking Decision By The State For The Examination Of Subsequent Years In The Matter Of Self Examination Centres. In Such A Situation, This Court Considers It Appropriate To Hear The State Of U.P. On The Question Of Self Examination Centre System Replaced By The Old System Applicable Under The Calendar Of The Uttar Pradesh Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Of Creating Examination Centres Other Than The Institutions Where The Students Were Pursuing Studies Is Not In Public Interest As Well As In The Interest Of Meritorious Students And The Community As A Whole And Goal To Be Achieved Under The Constitution Of India.

This Court Has Considered The Government Orders Dated 29th September, 2005 And 5th October, 2005 Issued By The Special Secretary, U.P. Government And The D.O. Letter Dated 3rd October, 2006 Issued By The Secretary, U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh And Is Prima Facie Of The View That The System Of Self Examination Centre In The Facts And Circumstances And In View Of The Materials Available On Record As Well As Discussions Made Above Is Not In The Interest To Achieve Aims And Object Of Education Through Our Education System Within The Constitutional Frame Work. State Is, Therefore, Issued Notice To Show Cause Why Operation Of Government Orders Dated 29th September, 2005 And 5th October, 2005 Issued By The Special Secretary, U.P. Government And The D.O. Letter Dated 3rd October, 2006 Issued By The Secretary, U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh May Not Be Replaced By The Old Provision Of Providing Examination Centres Under The Calendar Of The Board Of High School And Intermediate Other Than The Institution Where Students Was Pursuing Studies Be Not Followed As Provided Under Chapter VI Of The Calendar Of The Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh.

Put Up On 6th November, 2006 For Further Orders.
Learned Advocate General, State Of U.P., Will Assist The Court In The Matter.
Office Is Directed To Handover Copy Of This Order To Learned Advocate General, State Of U.P., Within Three Days.
1.11.2006."


On 6.11.2006, On The Request Made On Behalf Of Learned Advocate General, The Case Was Adjourned And The Matter Was Fixed For 7th Nov 2006. On 7th Nov 2006, Sri S.M.A. Kazmi Learned Advocate General Appeared In The Court And Sought One Week's Time Stating That Materials Germane To The Controversy Involved In The Writ Petition Are Required To Assist The Court. This Court Acceding To The Request Of The Learned Advocate General Adjourned The Hearing And Fixed The Case For 14.11.2006. At The Same Time, This Court Directed The State To Refrain From Passing Final Orders On The Basis Of Recommendations Made By The Board For Finalisation Of Examination Centres Under The Self Centre Examination Scheme. The Matter Was Fixed On 14.11.2006 And Learned Advocate General U.P. Was Heard And This Court Directed The State To Furnish Details Of Percentage Of Students Who Passed High School And Intermediate Examinations Prior To Coming Into Force And Also After Coming Into Force The Self Centre Examination Scheme And Further A List Of Unaided Colleges/schools Which Were Not Found Fit For Being Made A Centre For Holding Of Examination. On 14.11.2006, Sri Bhola Nath Yadav, Learned Standing Counsel Who Was Directed Earlier By The Court To Produce List Of Such Institutions Which Had Been Black-balled For Being Made A Centre For Holding Of Examinations On Account Of Being Found Involved In Mass Copying And Other Mal-practices But Were Directed By The Education Minister Of State Of U.P. For Being Approved As Centre For Holding Of Examination Under Self Examination Centre Scheme. Pursuant To Direction Of The Court, A List Was Submitted Which Is On Record. The Details Of Such Institutions Are Enumerated Below.
1. Amarnath Inter College Kanso Ballia,
2. Gayatri Pragyapeeth Uchhattar Madhyamik Vidyaley Majhrao Etah
3. M.H.M. Inter College Saidpur Bulandshahre
4. Pt. Shravan Kumar Dwivedi Inter College Jagammanpur Jalaun
5. Ratsad Inter College Ratsadh Ballia.

On 15.11.2006, This Court Again Passed A Detailed Order As Learned Advocate General Prayed For Adjournment Of The Case For A Week In Order To Enable Him To Communicate To The Government The Anxiety And Concern Of The Court So That Appropriate Decision May Be Taken After Reviewing The Entire Situation. The Order Passed On 15.11.2006 Is Being Reproduced Below.



Hon. S.N.Srivastava, J.

By Means Of Order Dated 14.11.2006, This Court Enjoined The Secretary, Board Of High School And Intermediate To Enlighten The Court On The Following Points.

(1) Percentage Of Students Who Passed In High School And Intermediate Examinations For The Year Immediately Before Coming Into Force The Self Centre Examination Scheme.
(2) Percentage Of Students Who Passed High School And Intermediate Examination After Coming Into Force The Self Centre Examination Scheme In The Last Three Years,
(3) List Of Unaided Colleges And Schools Which Have Not Been Found Fit For Holding Of Examinations Of Board Of High School And Intermediate Under The Self-centre Examination Scheme.


Learned Advocate General In Compliance Of The Order Aforesaid, Made A Statement On Instructions Received From The Board Of High School And Intermediate That In 2003 The Percentage Of Students Who Passed High School Was 40% While The Percentage Of Passed Student Has Leaped To 70% Under The Self Centre Examination Scheme. The Other Details Which Were Required By Means Of The Above Order Are Still Awaited. In This View Of The Matter, The Secretary Of The Board Of High School And Intermediate Is Directed To File Affidavit Detailing Therein The Complete Information In Compliance Of The Order Of The Court Dated 14.11.2006.

Picking Up The Threads Of Arguments Advanced Yesterday, Learned Advocate General Canvassed That Policy Decision Of Introducing Self Centre Examination Was Taken Keeping In View The Safety And Security Of The Students, And Also Taking Into Account The Difficulties Experienced And Expenses Involved In Transportation And Also Regard Being Had To The Impecunious Condition Of The Majority Of The People Of The State Of U.P. Who Find It Difficult To Bear The Transportation Expenses. Ostensibly In Veiled Support Of The Self Centre Scheme, The Learned Advocate General Further Canvassed That Various Measures Have Been Embarked Upon By The State To Eliminate The Evils Of Mass Copying And In This Connection He Referred To Government Order Dated 29.9.2006 (Annexure 6 To The Supplementary Affidavit). He Further Drew Attention Of The Court To The Fact That In The Examination 2005-2006 The State Government, By Means Of Govt Order Dated 1.1.2006 (Annexure 2 To The Supplementary Affidavit), Laid Down Guidelines And Directions Which Were Aimed At Keeping The Board Examinations Free From All Irregularities And To Minimize The Evils Of Mass Copying. The Learned Advocate General Also Canvassed That While Issuing Government Order Dated 29th Sept 2006, The Entire Matter Was Reviewed For 2007 And A Policy Decision Was Taken.

In The Light Of The Above Submissions, The Court Posted Various Questions The Quintessence Of Which Are As Under:

(1) Whether There Is Any Law Relating To Selection And Appointment Of Teachers Working In Unaided Colleges/schools And If So Whether State Has Any Control Over Them In The Matter Of Disciplinary Action Against Them Like Teachers In Aided School/colleges.
(2) From The Facts Revealed From The Affidavit Filed By The State, It Is Clear That In The Year 2004, Only 53 Colleges Were De-recognized As Examination Centre Under The Self-centre Examination Inasmuch As They Were Found Involved In Mass Copying. In2005, Number Of Colleges Increased From 53to 124 And In Theyear2006 The Number Increased To 192. The Above Figures Are Borne Out From The List Submitted By Sri Basudev Yadav, Secretary Of High School And Intermediate Daetd19th Sept 2006.

The State Has Filed Another Affidavit Listing Therein 181 Colleges Where Re Examination Was Ordered In The Year 2006 On Receiving Complaint Of Mass Copying And Again 227 Colleges Were De-recognized In 2006 As Centre For Examination Of Board Of High School And Intermediate. A List Was Also Placed Before The Court By The Learned Advocate General Which Goes To Show That 566 Colleges Were Further De-recognized As Centre For Examination Apart From 10 Colleges Which Were Not Found Fit For Examination Centre By The State. Apart From Above, 31colleges Were Further De-listed Against Which Adverse Report Was Given By The Executive Authorities That These Colleges Were Involved In Using Unfair Means. Further, Three Colleges Were Found Where The Question Papers Were Looted. Attention Of The Learned Advocate General Was Also Drawn To The Fact That Number Of Reports Have Been Received From The Educational Authorities Which Are Part Of The Record That Managers And Teachers Of Certain Unaided Colleges Are Reportedly Involved In Mass Copying Actuated By Oblique Motive. It Was Further Pointed Out That A Report Has Been Received By The Educational As Well As Other Authorities That There Is No Proper Safety And Security Of The Invigilator Coming From Outside And In Several Cases Police Have Reports That These Invigilators Have To Yield To Local Pressure Exerted By Local People Who Are Actively Involved In Pushing Mass Copying And Unfair Means.

The Learned Advocate General However, Prayed For Adjournment Of The Case For A Week In Order To Enable Him To Acquaint The State Government Of The Anxieties And Concerns Of The Court So That Appropriate Decision May Be Taken In The Matter After Reviewing The Situation In Entirety.

The Interim Order Already Passed Shall Continue To Hold Good Till Next Date Fixed In The Case.

M.H.
15.11.2006

The State Government Has Also Filed A List Of Such Unaided Institutions, Which Received Recognition For Running High School And Intermediate Classes. In The Conspectus Of Facts On Record, The Unaided Recognized Colleges Can Be Classified In Three Categories Firstly Those Which Have Been Granted Recognition By The Board After Observing In Compliance The Procedure Envisaged In Section 7 And 7 A Of The Act, Secondly Those Which Have Been Granted Recognition Under Section 9 (4) Of The Act By The State Government Directly Without Observing In Compliance The Procedure Prescribed Under The Regulations And Thirdly, Those Institutions Which Were Recognized Upto High School As Aided Colleges But Intermediate Section Was Recognized As Unaided.

From A Close Scrutiny Of The Reports Submitted By Various Educational As Well As Other Authorities, It Would Transpire That Following Kinds Of Mal-practices Were Established In Self Examination Centre System (1) Mass Copying Was Permitted By Writing Question And Answer In The Blackboard In The Examination At The Examination Centre, (2) In Most Of The Examinations Invigilators Leagued With College Management And Superintendents Examination And Oral Answers Of The Questions Were Dictated To Students Who Wrote Down The Same In The Answer Scripts And (3) In Case Unfair Means/mass Copying Was Not Possible They Tried To Get Answer Scripts Replaced With Other Answer Written Scripts Of Other Examinees, (4) In Most Of The Cases Superintendent, Examination Centre In League With Other Staff And Local Populace And Anti Social Elements Blinked At Mass Copying And (5) Unfair Means And Mass Copying Was Resorted To In League With Education Mafias Exercising Political Clout.

In Connection With The Above, The Report Submitted By Principal Secretary Programme Implementation Government Of U.P. In The Lucknow Bench Of This Court Writ Petition No. 5018 (MB) 2005 Prasad Nishad V. State Of U.P. And Others May Be Noticed. It Would Transpire That In The Aforesaid Writ Petition The Lucknow Bench Of This Court Had Constituted A One Man Committee On 16.12.2005 To Hold Enquiry And Submit A Report In The Light Of The Affidavit Filed By A.D.G. Crime On Behalf Of D.G. Police Regarding Activities Of Mafia In Cornering Government Contracts And Such Other Illegal Activities. The Aforesaid Report Under The Heading "Educational And Recreational Mafia" Recites The Insidious Role Of Mafia In The Educational System Of The State. The Relevant Part Of The Report Is Excerpted Below.

"Like The Finance Mafia, They Also Believe In Circumventing Rules Of Law. Under The Umbrella Of N.G.O./Trust/Foundation They Run Profit-making Institutions, Which More Often Than Not Flout Various Laws Of The Land. They Have Made Education A Lucrative Business. They Open Schools And Colleges, Take Donations Or High Fee And Appoint People Of Questionable Merit To Run Professional Colleges And Largely Produce Unemployable Youth. An Occasional Crack-down By The Government Or By The Court Is Only A Minor Set Back To Them. Such Mafias Run High Schools And Colleges With The Objective Of Making Money. They Encourage Students To Adopt Unfair Means To Pass Examinations. Virtually No Teaching Takes Place In Such Institutions And The Management And The Staff Assist Students In Their Nefarious Activities To Get Degrees. There Are Many Such Mafias Who Run Number Of Schools/colleges In The State And Enjoy Enormous Political Patronage.

Similarly, Recreation And Sports Bodies (specially Such Sports And Events Which Have Glamour And Money) Are Being Taken Over By People In Mafia Like Fashion. Cheating, Nepotism, Favouritism And Exploitation And Abuse Of Public Money, Resources Are The Name Of The Game. To Them, Government Is A Pagoda Tree, Which Can Always Be Shaken To Provide Funds. Instead Of Jail The Organizers Get T.V. And Press Coverage And Are Lionized."

From The Entire Perspective, It Would Transpire That There Have Been Constant Complaints Of Mal-practices Using Unfair-means In Mass Copying Particularly On Account Of Local Pressure By Exerted By The Local People And Also On Account Of Art And Part Of The College Authorities Leaguing With Centre Superintendent Ostensibly With A View To Achieving Higher Results And Also At Times Actuated By Improper Motives. The Genesis Of The Problem Is Not Far To Seek. There Is No Gainsaying That There Has Been Sudden Spurt In The Mass Copying And Other Ways Of Unfair Means Ever Since Coming Into Force The Self Centre Scheme By Means Of A Government Order Dated 23.12.2003. The Blame Could Be Attributed To Succumbing Of The Examination Authorities In League With College Staff And The Management Of Such Colleges/schools Under Local Pressure Exerted By Such Education Mafias. The Local Pressure Attended With Allurement Of Monetary Consideration Which Results In Forming Of Collusive Combination Has Been Playing Havoc With The System. In Consequence, Large Number Of Institutions Were Found Indulging In Mal Practices And The Collusive Combination Consisted Of Local People, Superintendents Examination Centre, Invigilators, Teachers And Non Teaching Staff Of The Colleges Which Facilitated Mass Copying And Other Mal Practices Bringing Into Disrepute The Entire Education System In U.P. It Cannot Be Negated That On Most Occasions, Even If The College Authorities May Be Averse To Being Willing Tools In The Hands Of Education Cartel/education Mafia Who Adopted Mass Copying As A Trade, Dangling Carrot Of Monetary Consideration But There May Be Occasion When Such Authorities Succumb To Such Pressure On Pain Of Threat To Life. Another Aspect Worthy Of Consideration Is That From The Record It Is Borne Out That Percentage Of Passing Of Students In The High School Was Hovering Around 40% In 2003 And In The Year 2004, It Skyrocketed To 70%. Likewise In Many Institutions Where The Pass Result Hovered Around 10%, It Touched The Frenzied Level I.e. 100% After Coming Into Force The Self Centre Scheme Out Of Which Most Of The Students Secured First Division.

Another Disquieting Feature Which Leaves The Court Exercised Is That About 566 Colleges Were Found Involved In Mass-copying And They Were Resultantly Discarded As Unworthy Of A Centre For Holding Of High School And Intermediate Examination And Further That Despite Being Black-listed, And Having Been Debarred For Three Years, They Before Expiry Of Three Years Were Again Approved As Centre For Holding Of High School And Intermediate Examination Ostensibly, As Can Be Perceived From Attending Circumstances, Due To Clout Exercised In Political Circle By The Management And Principal Of Institutions Concerned. It May Also Be Noticed That At The Governmental Level, Number Of Centres Which Were Declared Unfit By The Educational Authorities For Being Made Centre For Holding Of High School And Intermediate Examination Again Secured Approval As Self Centre At The Governmental Level.

According To Apex Court In A Recent Decision, The Education Is A National Wealth, Which Has To Be Preserved At All Cost. The Court Cannot Be Supposed To Be Passive/mute Spectators When Things Are Ill-done Or When Such Materials Come To Fore That The Present Education System Including Examination System Is Showing Signs Of Decaying And There Is Perilous Situation Staring The System Which By All Means Is Posing Danger To The National Wealth Which Is Likely To Affect The Entire Future Of The Country.

The Phrase "education" Has Been Defined In A Recent Case In P.A.Inamdar V. State Of Maharashtra 2005 (6) SCC 537. Paragraphs 81 To 88 Of The Judgment Being Relevant Are Quoted Below.
"81. "Education" According To Chambers Dictionary Is "bringing Up Or Training; ....strengthening Of The Powers Of Body Or Mind; Culture".
82. In Advanced Law Lexicon (P. Ramanatha Aiyer, 3rd Edn., 2005, Vol.2) ''education" Is Defined In Very Wide Terms. It Is Stated:
"Education Is The Bringing Up; The Process Of Developing And Training The Powers And Capabilities Of Human Beings. In Its Broadest Sense The Word Comprehends Not Merely The Instruction Received At School, Or College But The Whole Course Of Training Moral, Intellectual And Physical; Is Not Limited To The Ordinary Instruction Of The Child In The Pursuits Of Literature. It Also Comprehends A Proper Attention To The Moral And Religious Sentiments Of The Child. And It Is Sometimes Used As Synonymous With ''learning'."
83. In Sole Trustee, Lok Shikshana Trust V. CIT (1976) 1 SCC 254: 1976 SCC (Tax) 14 The Term "education" Was Held To Mean (SCC P. 262, Para 5)
"the Systematic Instruction, Schooling Or Training Given To The Young In Preparation For Th Work Of Life. It Also Connotes The Whole Course Of Scholastic Instruction Which A Person Has Received....What Education Connotes...is The Process Of Training And Developing The Knowledge, Skill, Mind And Character Of Students By Formal Schooling."
84. In "India-Vision 2020" Published By Then Planning Commission Of India, It Is Stated (at P.250);
"Education Is An Important Input Both For The Growth Of The Society As Well As For The Individual. Properly Planned Educational Input Can Contribute To Increase In The Gross National Products, Cultural Richness, Build Positive Attitude Towards Technology And Increase Efficiency And Effectiveness Of The Governance. Education Opens New Horizons For An Individual, Provides New Aspirations And Develops New Values. It Strengthens Competencies And Develops Commitment. Education Generates In An Individual A Critical Outlook On Social And Political Realities And Sharpens The Ability To Self-examination, Self-monitoring And Self-criticism."
"The Term ''knowledge Society', ''information Society' And ''learning Society' Have Now Become Familiar Expression In Educational Parlance, Communicating Emerging Global Trends With Far-reaching Implications For Growth And Development Of Any Society. These Are Not To Be Seen As Mere Clich??s Or Fads But Words That Are Pregnant With Unimaginable Potentialities. Information Revolution, Information Technologies And Knowledge Industries, Constitute Important Dimensions Of An Information Society And Contribute Effectively To The Growth Of A Knowledge Society." (ibid., P.246)
"Alvin Toffler (1980) Has Advanced The Idea That Power At The Dawn Of Civilization Resided In The ''muscle'. Power Then Got Associated With Money And In The 20th Century It Shifted Its Focus To ''mind'. Thus The Shift From Physical Power To Wealth Power To Mind Power Is An Evolution In The Shifting Foundations Of Economy. This Shift Supports The Observation Of Francis Bacon Who Said ''knowledge Itself Is Power'; Stressing The Same Point And Upholding The Supremacy Of Mind Power, In His Characteristic Expression, Winston Churchil Said, ''the Empires Of The Future Shall Be Empires Of The Mind'. Thus, He Corroborated Bacon And Professed The Emergence Of The Knowledge Society." (ibid., P.247)
85. Quadri, J. Has Well Put It In His Opinion In Pai Foundation (T.M.A. Pai Foundation V. State Of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481: (SCC P.635, Para 287)
"287. Education Plays A Cardinal Role In Transforming A Society Into A Civilized Nation. It Accelerates The Progress Of The Country In Every Sphere Of National Activity. No Section Of The Citizens Can Be Ignored Or Left Behind Because It Would Hamper The Progress Of The Country As A Whole. It Is The Duty Of The State To Do All It Could, To Educate Every Section Of Citizens Who Need A Helping Hand In Marching Ahead Along With Others."
86. According To Dr. Zakir Hussain, A Great Statesman With Democratic Credentials, A Secularist And An Educationist, A True Democracy Is One Where Each And Every Citizen Is Involved In The Democratic Process And This End Cannot Be Achieved Unless We Remove The Prevailing Large-scale Illiteracy In Our Country. Unless Universal Education Is Achieved Which Allows Every Citizen To Participate Actively In The Processes Of Democracy, We Can Never Claim To Be A True Democracy. Dr. Zakir Hussain Sought To Ensure That The Seeds Of Knowledge Were Germinated In The Minds Of As Many Citizens As Possible, With A View To Enabling Them To Perform Their Assigned Roles On The Stage Of Democracy. {Dr. Zakir Hussazin, As Quoted By Justice A.M. Ahmadi, The Then Chief Justice Of India [Dr. Zakir Husain Memorial Lecture On The Problem And Prospects Of Indian Democracy, (1996) 2 SCC J-1), SCC (J) At Pp.2-3]
87. Under Article 41 Of The Constitution, Right To Education, Amongst Others, Is Obligated To Be Secured By The State By Making Effective Provision Therefore. Fundamental Duties Recognized By Article 51-A Include, Amongst Others: Article 51-A(h) To Develop Scientific Temper, Humanism And The Spirit Of Inquiry And Reform; And Article 51-A(j) To Strive Towards Excellence In All Spheres Of Individual And Collective Activity So That The Nation Constantly Rises To Higher Levels Of Endeavour And Achievement. None Can Be Achieved Or Ensured Except By Means Of Education. It Is Well Accepted By The Thinkers, Philosophers And Academicians That If JUSTICE, LIBERTY, EQUALITY And FRATERNITY, Including Social, Economic And Political Justice, The Golden Goals Set Out In The Preamble To The Constitution Are To Be Achieved, The Indian Polity Has To Be Educated And Educated With Excellence. Education Is A National Wealth Which Must Be Distributed Equally And Widely, As Far As Possible, In The Interest Of Creating An Egalitarian Society, To Enable The Country To Rise High And Face Global Competition. "Tireless Striving Stretching Its Arms Towards Perfection" (to Borrow The Expression From Rabindranath Tagore) Would Not Be Successful Unless Strengthened By Education.
88. Education Is:
"...continual Growth Of Personality, Steady Development Of Character, And The Qualitative Improvement Of Life. A Trained Mind Has To Capacity To Draw Spiritual Nourishment From Every Experience, Be It Defeat Or Victory, Sorrow Or Joy. Education Is Training The Mind And Not Stuffing The Brain."
(See Eternal Values For A Changing Society, Vol.III- Education For Human Excellence, Published By Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay, At P.19.)
"We Want That Education By Which Character Is Formed, ''strength Of Mind Is Increased, The Intellect Is Expanded, And By Which One Can Stand On One's Own Feet...The End Of All Education, All Training, Should Be Man-making. The End And Aim Of All Training Is To Make The Man Grow. The Training By Which The Current And Expression Of Will Are Brought Under Control And Become Fruitful Is Called Education." (Swami Vivekanand As Quoted Ibid., At P.20.)

The Apex Court Has Further Held In Paragraph 90 That Education Is A National Wealth Essential For Nation's Progress And Prosperity.

The Learned Advocate General Pressed Into Service Certain Objection Having Complexion Of Preliminary Questions Assailing The Maintainability Of The Writ Petitions. The Questions Posed By The Learned Advocate General Are That In All The Writ Petitions, The Petitioners Have Approached The Court With Their Individual Grievances And This Court Therefore Cannot Go Into The Propriety Of Self Centre Examination Scheme Which Is A Matter Of Public Interest. It Is Further Submitted That The Matter, Which This Court Is Seized Of, Can Be Gone Into By A Division Bench Dealing With Public Interest Litigation. He Further Submitted That It Is The Preserve Of The Chief Justice To Constitute Benches And In This Connection Referred To Chapter V Rule 1 Of The Rules Of The Court And Urged That This Court While Sitting Single And Is Not A P.I.L. Bench Cannot Determine This Question. He Further Urged That No Relief Can Be Granted And Further That Policy Matter Cannot Be Interfered With By The Court. In Support Of The Above Submissions The Learned Standing Counsel Placed For Consideration The Certain Case Laws.

Before Dwelling On The Case-laws, It Would Be Appropriate To Recount Certain Events. The Self Centre Examination Scheme Was Introduced By Means Of Government Order Dated 23.12.2003 For The Examination To Be Held In March 2004 And Eversince Then The Self Centre Scheme Has Been Allowed To Perpetuate By Subsequent Government Orders Issued By The State Of U.P. Sometime Before Commencement Of The Examination. The Learned Advocate General Arguing On Maintainability Of The Writ Petitions And Also On The Jurisdiction Of This Court, Submitted That Having Regard To The Pleading Of The Parties, This Court Can Only Be Said To Be Dealing With A Private Matter Of Individual Interest And By Any Stretch Of Imagination The Matter In Hand Is A Public Interest Litigation And Can Be Adjudicated Upon By A Bench Dealing With P.I.L. In This Connection, The Advocate General Further Submitted That According To Chapter V Rule I Of The Rules Of The Court, The Jurisdiction Of Constituting Benches Is The Exclusive Jurisdiction Of The Chief Justice And Further There Is Separate Bench For Public Interest Litigation. He Further Submitted That Self-centre Scheme Is A Policy Decision, Which May Affect The Entire State And Regard Being Had To The Significance Of The Matter Having Element Of Public Interest, The Matter Can Be Gone Into By A Bench Dealing With Public Interest Litigation And Not Any Other Bench. The First Case Relied Upon By The Advocate General Is Bharat Singh V. State Of Haryana AIR 1988 SC 2181. In This Case The Essence Of What Has Been Held Is That When A Point Which Is Ostensibly A Point Of Law Is Required To Be Substantiated By Facts The Party Raising The Point If He Is The Writ Petitioner Must Plead And Prove Such Facts By Evidence Which Must Appear From The Writ Petition And If He Is The Respondent From The Counter Affidavit. It Is Further Held That If The Facts Are Not Pleaded Or The Evidence In Support Of Such Facts Is Not Annexed To The Writ Petition Or The Counter Affidavit As The Case May Be, The Court Will Not Entertain The Point. The Next Case Relied Upon By The Advocate General Is State Of Rajasthan V. Prakash Chand AIR 1998 SC 1344. This Case Deals With The Power Of Chief Justice Under Article 229 Of The Constitution Of India. The Essence Of Ratio Flowing From This Decision Is That Where The Single Judge Directed The Listing Of Certain Part Heard Cases Before Him As A Single Judge By Providing A Separate Board For The Purpose While Sitting In A Division Bench, The Direction Was Without Jurisdiction And The Order Of Chief Justice Of High Court To Refer The Part Heard Case To Division Bench Was Legal. The Next Case Relied Upon Is Jasbir Singh V. State Of Punjab JT 2006 (9) SC 35. In This Case The Apex Court Was Dealing With The Matter In Which Administrative Judges Of Punjab And Haryana High Court Passed Orders Judicial Orders Directing Subordinate Judicial Authorities To Pass Orders On Dotted Line While Acting As Administrative Judge. The Next Case Is Prof Y.C.Simhadri V.C. B.H.U V. Deen Bandhu Pathak 2001 (4) AWC 2688. It Was A Decision Stemming From Contempt Matter. The Crux Of Ratio Flowing From This Decision Is That Single Jude Not Assigned Determination Of Contempt Matters By Chief Justice But Issuing Notice For Contempt To Appellants, The Order Passed By Single Judge Is Without Jurisdiction And Void. The Other Cases Relied Upon By The Learned Advocate General In Support Of His Other Allied Arguments Are 1997 SC 128, 1973 SC 588, 2002 (6) SCC 252, 2002 (3) JT 304.

Further Stage By Stage Recapitulation Of Certain Facts Is Also Necessary Here On The Point Relating To Jurisdiction Of This Court In Entertaining These Petitions Relating To The Question Of Self Centre Examination Scheme. From A Perusal Of The Order Sheet Of Writ Petition No. 7339 Of 2006, It Would Appear That This Court After Hearing Parties, Directed The Learned Standing Counsel To Secure A Copy Of The Report For Being Produced Before This Court On The Date Fixed And Also Directed Learned Standing Counsel To Produce All Complaints Relating To Mass Copying And Nexus Of College Authorities, Examination Superintendents, Officials And Touts During The Last Three Years On 7th August 2006 Which Was Also The Date Fixed For Production Of Relevant Documents. On 25.8.2006, An Affidavit Was Filed In Compliance Of The Earlier Order. On 4.9.2006, This Court Further Directed To Produce Before The Court The Complaints Received From Any Quarter Against Mass Copying In The Last Three Years And Also List Of Such Institutions Against Which Complains Were Received Against Their Recognition As Centre For Examination. The Secretary Of The Board Was Directed To Comply With The Order. Accordingly, Some Of The Documents Were Produced Before The Court. Thereafter The Matter Was Listed From Time To Time And Ultimately The Case Was Listed Before This Court On 1.11.2006 Alongwith Other Connected Matters. The Writ Petition No. 46461 Of 2006 Filed Challenging The Order Of The Board Of High School And Intermediate Whereby Names Of The College Alongwith Other 38 Colleges Were Removed As Examination Centres, Was Directed To Be Listed Alongwith Writ Petition No. 7339 Of 2006 By Means Of Order Dated 28.8.2006. The Writ Petition No. 53414 Of 2006 Was Filed Challenging The Order Of Board Of High School And Intermediate Whereby The Institution Was Debarred As Examination Centres Alongwith 227 Colleges Vide Order Dated 31.7.2006. This Court After Hearing Learned Counsel For The Petitioner And Also Learned Standing Counsel Directed The Learned Standing Counsel To File Counter Affidavit Attended With Further Direction To Place Alongwith Record Of Writ Petition No. 7339 Of 2006 For Further Hearing On 15.11.2006 Vide Order Dated 25.9.2006. Similarly Writ Petition No. 31482 Of 2006 Filed By A Student Alleging Mal Practices In The Present System At The Examination Centre Indulged In By Supdt Examination Centre In Collusion With College Teachers And Other Staff And As A Result, She Was Declared Failed.

In Connection With The Above, It Would Transpire That The Above Petitions Were Heard By The Court While Sitting In Court No. 33. Subsequently, The Court Was Assigned The Work Of Court No. 23 On 15.10.2006 And The Above Cases Came To Be Listed Before This Court After Change Of Assignment Of Work Ostensibly The Same Being Part Heard/tied Up.

It Brooks No Dispute That The Cause List Is Published Under The Authority Of The Chief Justice. From A Perusal Of Order Sheet It Would Appear That The Cases Aforesaid Were Listed In The Cause List On 1.11.2006 Before The Court. There Is No Indicium On Record That Any Application Was Moved Before The Chief Justice Or Any Prayer Was Made By The Learned Advocate General Before The Chief Justice For Nominating Any Other Bench Or The Division Bench Dealing With P.I.L On The Ground That The Question At Issue Related To Public Interest Litigation Which Could Be Dealt With By A Bench Dealing With Public Interest Litigation. In This Connection Chapter 5 Rule 14 Of The Rules Of The Court May Be Noticed According To Which The Tied Up Cases Can Be Heard By The Same Bench.

In Connection With The Objection Having Complexion Of Preliminary Objection, Few Cases May Be Noticed. In Ashok Lanka V. Rishi Dixit 2005 SCW 2676, The Apex Court In Para 43 Held That It Is Well Settled That Even In A Case Where The Petitioner Might Have Moved The Court In His Private Interest And For Redressal Of His Personal Grievances, The Court In Furtherance Of The Public Interest May Treat It Necessary To Enquire Into The State Of Affairs Of The Subject Of Litigation In The Interest Of Justice. Para 43 Of The Said Decision Being Relevant Are Quoted Below.

"It May Not Be Necessary For Us To Consider As To Whether The Public Interest Litigation Should Have Been Entertained By The High Court Or Not. The High Court Did Entertain The Public Interest Litigation Without Any Objection And Ultimately Allowed The Same. Furthermore, It Is Well Settled That Even In A Case Where A Petition Might Have Moved The Courting His Private Interest And For Redressal Of Personal Grievances, The Court In Furtherance Of The Public Interest May Treat It Necessary To Enquire Into The State Of Affairs Of The Subject Of Litigation In The Interest Of Justice."

The Apex Court Referred To 2003 AIR SCW 6039=2004 SC 569. The Next Case Is Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee V. C.K.Rajan 2003 AIR SCW 639. In This Case The Court In Paragraph 15 Has Held That In Appropriate Cases Although The Petitioner Might Have Moved The Court In His Private Interest And For Redressal Of Personal Grievance, The Court In Furtherance Of Public Interest May Treat It Necessary To Enquire Into The State Of Affairs Of Subject Of Litigation In The Interest Of Justice. The Principles Evolved And Summarized By The Supreme Court From Various Decisions In Regard To Public Interest Litigation Are Contained In Paragraph 50 Of The Said Decision. The Principles Embodied In Point Nos. (viii) And (ix) Being Relevant Are Quoted Below.

"(viii) However, In An Appropriate Case, Although The Petitioner Might Have Moved A Court In His Private Interest And For Redressal Of The Personal Grievances, The Court In Furtherance Of The Public Interest May Treat It Necessary To Enquire Into The State Of Affairs Of The Subject Of Litigation In The Interest Of Justice.
(ix) The Court In Special Situations May Appoint Commission, Or Other Bodies For The Purpose Of Investigating Into The Allegations And Finding Out Facts. It May Also Direct Management Of A Public Institution Taken Over By Such Committee. The Court Will Not Ordinarily Transgress Into A Policy. It Shall Also Take Utmost Care Not To Transgress Its Jurisdiction While Purporting To Protect The Rights Of The People From Being Violated."


Similarly, In AIR 1987 SC 294, The Apex Court In Paragraph 36 While Dealing With The Allegations Made In The Petition Disclosed The Lamentable State Of Affairs In One Of The Premier University Of The India. The Petitioner Might Have Moved For His Private Interest But Enquiry Into The Conduct Of Examination Of Bombay University In One Of The Highest Medical Degree Was A Matter Of Public Interest. Such State Of Affairs Having Been Brought To The Notice Of The Court It Was Duty Of The Court That The Truth And Validity Of The Matter May Be Enquired Into. It Was In Furtherance Of Public Interest That Enquiry Becomes Necessary And Private Litigation Assumes The Character Of Public Interest Litigation And Such An Enquiry Cannot Be Avoided If It Is Necessary And Essential For Administration Of Justice. Paragraph 36 Being Also Relevant Is Quoted Below.

"36. The Allegations Made In The Petition Disclose A Lamentable State Of Affairs In One Of The Premier Universities Of India. The Petitioner Might Have Moved In His Private Interest But Enquiry Into The Conduct Of The Examiners Of The Bombay University In One Of The Highest Medical Degrees Was A Matter Of Public Interest. Such State Of Affairs Having Been Brought To The Notice Of The Court, It Was The Duty Of The Court To The Public That The Truth And The Validity Of The Allegations Made Be Enquired Into. It Was In Furtherance Of Public Interest That An Enquiry Into The State Of Affairs Of Public Institution Becomes Necessary And Private Litigation Assumes The Character Of Public Interest Litigation And Such An Enquiry Cannot Be Avoided If It Is Necessary And Essential For The Administration Of Justice."

In Connection With The Above A Recent Full Bench Decision Of This Court In Suo Motu Action Taken By The Court V. I.C.I.C.I. Bank Ltd, Allahabad And Others (2006 (4) ADJ 106, May Be Referred To. In This Case, A Division Bench Of This Court After Framing Questions Of Public Importance, Made A Reference To Hon. Chief Justice In A Case Arising Out Of Habeas Corpus Petition Observing That Some Questions Of Larger Public Importance Have Arisen. In The Reference Made To Chief Justice, It Was Further Observed That This Court Cannot Lose Sight Of Day To Day Happenings In The Society And Therefore, We Have Taken Suo Motu Cognizance Of The Matter On The Facts That Have Been Brought On Record In The Aforesaid Habeas Corpus Petition And Supplementary Affidavit. Upon Reference Being Made The Chief Justice Directed The Matter To Be Registered As Public Interest Litigation And Referred The Matter To The Full Bench. The Full Bench After Hearing Learned Counsel For All The Parties, Ultimately Relegated The Matter To The Appropriate Division Bench Observing In Paragraph 17 As Under:

"We Are Therefore Of The Clear Opinion That The Direction To Have A Case Registered As A Public Interest Litigation Merely Because Of The Public Importance Of The Questions Of Law Involved, Was A Direction Not In Accordance With Law And As Such, The Reference Made On The Administrative Side By Me, Bringing The Matter Before This Bench As A Public Interest Litigation Is Also Incorrect And The Matter Should Never Have Been Branded As A Public Interest Litigation Either By Hon. Division Bench Judicially, Or By Me Acting In Administrative Capacity."

Further The Full Bench After Dealing With The Relevant Provisions Of The High Court Rules Ultimately Held (vide Paragraph 26 Of The Decision) As Under:

"The Courts Have Jurisdiction To Decide On Points Of Law Only When Those Arise In Relation To And Are Incidental To Questions Raised By Parties Affecting Their Own Rights, Liabilities And Interest. The Court Is All The Time Deciding Questions Of Law, But It Is A Paradox That The Court Has No Jurisdiction To Decide A Question Of Law And A Question Of Law Only, Like A Professor Answering Questions To A Persistent Law Student."

It Would Further Appear From A Scrutiny Of The Decision That The Full Bench Also Placed Credence On Ashok Lanka's Case Reported In (2005) 5 SCC 598 The Essence Of Ratio Flowing From It Was That It Was Within The Discretion Of The Court In An Appropriate Litigation Even To Inquire Into Public Facts Suo Motu If The Exigency Of The Case So Required.

In The Conspectus Of Above Discussions, The Objection Having Complexion Of Preliminary Objection Raised By The Advocate General The Quintessence Of Which Is That In A Dispute Where Question Of Mass Copying And De-listing Of Centres By Reason Of Their Being Involved In Various Mal Practices Like Indulging In Mass Copying Land Unfair-means, With The Help Of Outside Agency In Collusion With College Authorities, Teachers And Other Non-teaching Staff The Question Of Allotment Of Centres Under Self Centre Scheme Cannot Be Looked Into As It Impinges Upon Public At Large And Should Be Registered And Dealt With Only By The Bench Dealing With Public Interest Litigation, Cannot Be Sustained And The Same Is Negatived.

The Next Question That Crops Up For Consideration Is Whether The Government Order Dated 29.9.2006 Issued By The State Government Could Be Issued In Exercise Of Executive Power Under Section 9 (4) Of The U.P. Intermediate Education Act And Further Whether Any Such Direction Could Be Given In Exercise Of Power Under Section 9 (4) Of The U.P. Intermediate Education Act.

In Connection With The Above, Relevant Provisions Of The Education Act May Be Noticed. It Transpires From The U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921 That Initially High School And Intermediate Examinations In U.P. Were Under The Control Of Allahabad University Before Enacting The U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921 By Which The Board Was Established To Take The Place Of The Allahabad University In Regulating And Supervising The System Of The High School And Intermediate Education In Uttar Pradesh And Prescribed Courses Therefore. Section 2 (aa) Of The Intermediate Education Act Defines "centre" Which Means An Institution Or A Place Fixed By The Board For The Purposes Of Holding Its Examinations And Includes The Entire Premises Attached Thereto. Section 2 (b) Defines "Institution" Which Means A Recognized Intermediate College, Higher Secondary School Or High School, And Includes Where The Context So Requires, A Part Of An Institution And "Head Of Institution" Means The Principal Or Head Master, As The Case May Be, Of Such Institution. Similarly "Invigilator" Has Been Defined In Section 2 (bbb), Which Means A Person Who Assists The Superintendent Of A Centre In Conducting And Supervising The Examinations At Centre. Section 2 (g) Defines "Superintendent Of A Centre" Which Means A Person Appointed By The Board To Conduct And Supervise Examinations Of The Board And Includes An Additional Superintendent And Associate Superintendent. Section 3 Of The Act Deals With Constitution Of The Board. It Envisages That Out Of 51 Members, Eight Members Shall Be Ex-officio And Rest Shall Be Elected And Nominated In Accordance With The Procedure Prescribed In Section 3 Read With Relevant Regulations. The Members Of The Bards Are Experts Of Different Branches In The Field Of Education. The Power Of The Board Has Been Envisaged In Section 7 (3) And (4) Of The Act. Section 7 (3) Postulates That The Board Shall Conduct Examinations At The End Of The High School And Intermediate Courses. Section 7 (4) Of The Act Postulates That The Board Shall Recognize Institutions For The Purposes Of Its Examinations. The Board, It Would Appear, Is Also Competent To Frame Regulations Under Section 15 With Due Approval Of The State And Such Regulation Shall Be Published In The Official Gazette. In This Connection, Section 15 (c ) And (g) Are Relevant For The Purposes Of The Controversy Involved In The Petitions. Section 15 (c) Deals With The Power Of The Board To Make Regulations Regarding The Conditions Of Recognition Of Institution For The Purposes Of Its Examinations And Likewise 15 (g) Regarding The Conduct Of Examinations. The Regulations Framed By The Board Prescribes A Very Detailed Procedure For Recognition Of The Institution. It Also Mentions That In Case High School Is There The Recognition Of Intermediate Shall Be Given. The Regulations Framed By The Board Prescribe All Such Steps To Protect The Education System At The High School And Intermediate Level.

Since The Very Establishment Of The Board As Discussed Above, The Examination Centre And Institutions Are Defined Separately And Therefore Since The Very Beginning The Examination Centre And The Institutions As Well As Superintendent Of The Centre As Defined Under The Act Were Treated Differently While Institution Is Headed By The Principal Or Headmaster. The Examination Centre Is Under The Control Of Superintendent Of The Examination And That Is Why The Legislature Enacted The Intermediate Education Act And Board Of High School And Intermediate Represented By All Types Of Experts In Various Sections Of The Education. Section 13 (2) Of The Act Deals With Constitution Of Examination Committee. It Envisages That Examination Committee Shall Consist Of The Members Of The Board And Such Committee Shall Be Constituted In Such A Way That As Far As Possible At Least One Member From Each Of The Six Groups Of The Experts In Education.

The Learned Advocate General Urged That Powers Exercised Under Section 9 (4) Of The U.P. Intermediate Education Act Is An Exclusive Power And Is In Fact In The Nature Of Legislative Power Conferred By The State Under The U.P. Intermediate Education Act And Such Power Was Rightly Exercised In The Facts Of The Present Case. The Advocate General In This Connection Relied Upon A Decision Reported In Kirshna Pal Singh V. Government Of U.P. (1981 UPLBEC 521. It Is A Division Bench Decision In Which It Was Held That "Section 9 (4) Confers Wide Power On State Government To Make Any Regulation, Modify Or Rescind It In Respect Of Any Matter Under The Provisions Of The Act." It Was Further Held That " The State Government Has Ample Powers To Issue Orders, Making Any Regulation In Respect Of Any Matter Provided Under The Act And Also To Modify Or Rescind And Regulation Which May Have Been Framed By The Board. It Was Also Held That Any Order Issued By The State Government Under The Aforesaid Provision Would Acquire Statutory Character And The Same Would Be Effective Notwithstanding Any Regulation Framed By The Board. Referring To The Above Decision, The Learned Advocate General Urged That The Government Order Issued By The State Of U.P. Deciding The Policy For High School And Intermediate Examination 2007 Was Rightly Issued And That Order Was Within The Four Corners Of Section 9 (4) Of The U.P. Intermediate Act Which Has Statutory Force And Therefore This Matter Cannot Be Looked Into. Before Dealing With The Contentions Aforesaid, It Would Be Apt To Abstract Below Section 9 (4) Of The U.P. Intermediate Education Act.

" 9. Powers Of State Government. - (1) The State Government Shall Have The Right To Address The Board With Reference To Any Of The Works Conducted Or Done By The Board And To Communicate To The Board Its Views On Any Matter With Which The Board Is Concerned.
(2) The Board Shall Report To The State Government Such Action, If Any, As It Is Proposed To Take Or Has Been Taken Upon Its Communication.
(3) If The Board Does Not, Within A Reasonable Time, Take Action To The Satisfaction Of The State Government, The State Government May, After Considering Any Explanation Furnished Or Representation Made By The Board, Issue Such Directions Consistent With This Act As It May Think Fit, And The Board Shall Comply With Such Directions.
(4) Whenever, In The Opinion Of The State Government, It Is Necessary Or Expedient To Take Immediate Action, It May, Without Making Any Reference To The Board Under The Foregoing Provisions, Pass Such Order Or To Take Such Other Action Consistent With The Provisions Of This Act As It Deems Necessary, And In Particular, May Be Such Order Modify Or Rescind Or Make Any Regulation In Respect Of Any Matter And Shall Forthwith Inform The Board Accordingly.
(5) No Action Taken By The State Government Under Sub-section (4), Shall Be Called In Question."


Section 9 (1) Bestows Power On State Government To Address The Board With Reference To Any Of The Works Conducted Or Done By The Board And To Communicate The Board Its Views On Any Matter With Which The Board Is Concerned. Section 9 (2) Of The Act Envisages That The Board Shall Report To The State Government Such Action If Any As It Is Proposed To Take Or Has Been Taken Upon Its Communication. Section 9 (3) Of The Act Envisages That In Case Board Does Not Within A Reasonable Time Take Action To The Satisfaction Of The State Government, The State Government May, After Considering Any Explanation Furnished Or Representation Made By The Board, Issue Such Directions Consistent With This Act As It May Think Fit, And The Board Shall Comply With Such Directions. Section 9 (4) Of The Act Confers A Kind Of Emergency Power On The State Government. It Is Envisaged That In Case It Is Expedient To Take Immediate Action, It May, Without Making Any Reference To The Board Under The Foregoing Provisions, Pass Such Order Or To Take Such Other Action Consistent With The Provisions Of This Act As It Deems Necessary And In Particular May Be Such Order Modify Or Rescind Or Make Any Regulation In Respect Of Any Matter And Shall Forthwith Inform The Board Accordingly.

The Scope And Amplitude Of Section 9 (4) Of The U.P. Intermediate Act Has Been Reckoned With By Different Division Benches Of This Court. The First Case Dealing With The Powers Of Section 9 (4) Is Dr. Ramji Dwivedi V. State Of U.P. (1982 UPLBEC 137). In This Case, It Would Appear, The State Government Issued Radiogram On 7.4.1981 Prohibiting Temporarily All The Proceedings For Selection And Appointment Of Teachers. While Dealing With The Controversy In The Case, The Division Bench Held That Executive Powers Of State Government Are Wide And Radiogram Could Be Issued In Exercise Of Powers Under Section 9 (4) Of The Act. This Matter Went Up To The Supreme Court And The Supreme Court Lent Affirmance To The Order Passed By The Division Bench Holding That The Radiogram Was Rightly Issued Under Section 9 (4) Of The Act As The Whole Procedure For The Appointment And Selection Was Going To Be Changed And The Matter Was Under Consideration And Therefore, In The Meantime This Order Was Passed Under Section 9 (4) Prohibiting Selection And Appointment Of Teachers In Non Government Schools And Colleges. The Apex Court In Dr. Ramji Dwivedi V. State Of U.P. And Others (1983) UPLBEC 426, In Paragraph 12 Of The Decision While Dealing With The Scope Of Section 9 (4) Of The Act Held That The State Government While Issuing Radiogram On 7.4.1981 Stopped All Fresh Selection And Appointment Of Principals Etc Of Non-Government Schools. Paragraph 12 Of The Decision Being Germane To The Point Under Discussion Is Quoted Below.

"12. Sub-section (4) Of Section 9 Which Has Been Extracted Hereinbefore Confers Power On The State Government Without Making Any Reference To The Board To Make An Order Or Take Such Other Action Consistent With The Provisions Of The Act As It Deems Necessary And In Particular, May By Such Order Modify Or Rescind Or Make Any Regulation In Respect Of Any Matter. It Would Thus Unquestionably Transpire That While Enacting The Regulations Prior Sanction Of The State Government Is Necessary And Under Sub-section (4) Of Section 9 The State Government Enjoys The Power To Make, Modify Or Rescind Any Regulation. Armed With This Power, The State Government Issued An Order Dated July 7,1981 Stopping All Fresh Selections And Appointments Of Principals Etc In All Non-govt. Aided Schools. Sri Nath Intermediate College Is A Non-govt Aided School. The Effect Of The Order Conveyed By The Radiogram Would Be To Rescind The Regulation Conferring Power On The Committee Of Management To Make Appointment And Withdrawing And/or Suspending Power Of Appointment Of Principal And Teachers. The Issuance Of The Order Is Not In Dispute. The Argument, In The High Court, Was That The State Government Had No Such Power And That Even If Sub Section (4) Is Deemed To Confer Such A Power It Has To Be Read In Juxtaposition With The Power Conferred On The State Government By Sub Section (1) (2) (3) Preceding Sub Section (4) Of Section 9. The High Court Therefore Had To Examine The Width And Ambit Of The Executive Power Of The State Government In Exercise Of Which The Order Was Issued. E Need Not Go That Far Because In Our Opinion Sub Section (4) Specifically Confers Power On The State Government Without Making Any Reference To The Board To Make, Modify Or Rescind Any Regulation As Also Make Such Other Order Consistent With The Provisions Of The Act. This Power Of Wide Amplitude Will Comprehend The Power To Stop All Appointments For The Time Being. And The Power Appears To Have Been Exercised As Government Was Contemplating Taking Away The Power Of Private Management Of Non-govt. Aided Schools To Make Appointment Of Teachers Including Principals. In Order To Avoid Forestalling Of Government Action By Private Managements, The Power To Make Appointment Was Suspended For The Time Being. As Pointed Out Earlier, The Regulation Confers Power On The Committee Of Management To Make Appointment. That Regulation Was Enacted By The Board With The Prior Sanction Of The State Government. The State Government Could Be Said To Have Rescinded That Regulation Conferring Power Of Appointment Or At Any Rate Suspend The Power Conferred On The Committee Of Management To Make Appointment. The Order Became Effective The Moment It Is Issued. The Effect Of This Order Is That The Selection Committee Had No Right To Select The Appellant Nor The Committee Of Management Had Any Power To Make The Appointment."


The Scope Of Section 9 (4) Of The U.P. Intermediate Education Act Was Again Considered By This Court In Smt. Samantika Chatterjee V. Regional Inspectress Of Girls Schools (1990) 1 UPLBEC 239 In Which The Government Order Dated 25.1.1974 Issued In Exercise Of Power Under Section 9 (4) Of The Act Was Ignored. It Was Held That At Best, The Decision Of The State Government As Contained In The Said Communication Can Be Termed As A Government Order Passed In Purported Exercise Of Powers Conferred Under Article 154 Read With Article 162 Of The Constitution And Further That The Exercise Of Such A Power Could Not Be Made In The Teeth Of The Statutory Order Passed Under Sub-section (4) Of Section 9 And Ultimately It Was Held That It Should Be Ignored. Paragraph 10 Of The Aforesaid Decision Being Relevant Is Excerpted Below.

"10. We Have Already Indicated That The Decision Of The State Government Of 25th January, 1974 Was An Order Passed In Exercise Of Powers Under Sub Section (4) Of Section 9 Of The Act. There Appears To Be A Clear Conflict Between The Order Of 25th January, 1974 And The Decision Of The State Government As Contained In The Communication Of The Director Dated 4th Oct, 1974. A Perusal Of The Communication Of The Director Will Immediately Show That The State Government Did Not Purport To Pass Any Order Under Any Statutory Provision Of The Act. It Appears That Certain Queries By The Subordinates Were Answered By The State Government. At Best, The Decision Of The State Government As Contained In The Said Communication Can Be Termed As A Government Order Passed In The Purported Exercise Of Powers Conferred Under Article 164 Read With Article 162 Of The Constitution. The Exercise Of Such A Power Could Not Be Made In The Teeth Of The Statutory Order Passed Under Sub Section (4) Of Section 9. Therefore, The Decision Of The State Government, As Contained In The Aforesaid Communication Of The Director, In So Far As It Affects The Right Of The Petitioner, Must Give Way To The Statutory Order Passed Under Sub Section (4) Of Section 9 Of The Act And, Therefore, The Same Should Be Ignored."


Reverting To The Facts Of The Case In Hand, The Government Order Dated 29th Sept 2006 Issued By The State Government By Which Direction Was Issued For Holding Of Examination Of High School And Intermediate 2007, The Norms To Be Fixed And Also For Determination Of Centre Of Examinations Requires To Be Scrutinized. From A Close Scrutiny, It Would Appear That This Letter Refers To Some D.O. Letter Dated 6.9.2006 Received By The State Government From The Director Of Education (Secondary) Who Also Has Trapping Of Chairman Of The Board Of High School And Intermediate. It Has Been Referred Therein That In The Examinations For High School And Intermediate, 2005 And 2006, Government Orders Were Also Issued Making Policy Decision In Regard To Norms For Examination Centres. From A Further Perusal Thereof, It Would Appear That Policy Decision Made By The State Government For High School And Intermediate Examination 2007 And The Norms As Framed Are Also Mentioned Therein. Ultimately It Has Been Recited In The Said G.O. That Self Examination Centre Scheme Shall Be Applicable To The Examination For High School And Intermediate To Be Held In 2007 As Well. This Letter, By All Reckoning, Is Nothing But A Communication To The Director Of The Board And Could At Best Be Termed As Order Passed Under Section 9 (1) Of The Intermediate Education Act Where The State Government Has Addressed To The Board With Reference To The Works Conducted Or Done By The Board And Communicated To The Board Its View On Any Matter With Which The Board Is Concerned. This Is A Letter To The Board For Conducting Examination Of High School And Intermediate, Which Is The Work Of The Board Under The U.P. Intermediate Education Act. Section 13 Of The Intermediate Education Act, Makes It Clear That The Examination Committee Shall Be Constituted In Accordance With Sub Section (1) And Sub Section (2). It Further Makes Clear That The Board Has Power To Frame Regulations Under Section 15 (1) (g) Of The Act And Such Regulations Shall Be Enforced With The Prior Approval Of The State Upon Publication Of The Official Gazette. The Board Has Framed Regulations, Which Have Already Been Published In The Official Gazette With The Approval Of The State Government. Chapter VI Of The Regulations Deals With Examination Committee Constituted By The Board Under Section 13 (2) Of The U.P. Intermediate Education Act. Regulation 2 (h) Of Chapter VI Specifically Mentions That It Is The Examination Committee Which Is Competent To Exercise Power For The Examination Centres Evaluation Centres And Shall Submit Report About Policy Decision To The Secretary Of The Board Who Shall In Consultation With The Regional Deputy Director, Implement The Policy Relating To Examination Centres Evaluation Centres, Collection Centres And Regional Deputy Director Education Will Submit To The Secretary The Resolution Of The Examination Centres For Consideration Of Committee Constituted Of Which Regional Deputy Director Shall Be The Chairman And After Receiving A Report From The District Level Committee Headed By The District Inspector Of Schools The Secretary Of The Board Has Power To Change Any Examination Centre Established Under The Above Procedure.

As Would Be Clear From The Facts Brought To The Notice Of The Court That Board Has Not Been Constituted Under Section 3 (1) (b) Of The Intermediate Education Act. It Is Further Brought To The Notice Of The Court That The Board Has Not Been Constituted Since 1982 Under Section 3 Of Intermediate Education Act And Out Of 55 Members Of The Board Only Ex-officio Members Are Continuing As Adhoc Board Since 1984 And The Secretary Of The Board Who Should Be Of The Rank Of Joint Director, Is Not Working There For The Last Several Years But An Officer Of The Rank Of Additional Director Has Been Deputed To Work As Secretary On Adhoc Basis. In Any Case, The Adhoc Board Has Already Constituted An Examination Committee, Which Is Already In Existence. The Composition Of Such Committee Has Not Been Superseded By The State So Far And In The Normal Course, The Decision Of The Examination Committee/Board, If Any About Policy Matter In The Matter Of Examination Including Examination Centres Or Any Other Matter Arising Out Of The Examination Should Have Been Done By The Examination Committee In The Prescribed Procedure Under The Regulations Which Has Statutory Force. It Is Further Clear From The Record That From The Date On Which The U.P. Intermediate Education Act Came Into Force In The State Of U.P., The Policy Of Establishing Centres In Other Institutions Not In The Institution Where The Students Appearing In The Examination Are Being Imparted Education Was Followed And This Policy Was Also Allowed To Continue By Government Order Dated 28th Oct 2003 But All Of A Sudden By Government Order Dated 23rd Dec 2003, The Self Centre Examination System Was Introduced. The State Government Has Again Taken Another Decision Through Government Order Dated 29th Sept 2005 Whereby The Scheme Of Self Examination Centre Was Revalidated And The Board Was Directed To Allot Self Centre For The High School And Intermediate Examination 2005 And 2006 And Now In 2007.

Under The Statute The Power Of Framing Policy For Examination Centres Vests In The Examination Committee Of The Board. The Said Government Order Issued By The State Government Directing Director Of Education Cannot Be Termed As An Order In Exercise Of Power Under Section 9 (4) Of The Education Act. Section 9 (4) Of The Act Specifically Makes It Clear That In Case Any Such Situation Arises Which Requires Immediate Action That Power Could Be Exercised By The State. This Power Under Section 9 (4) Of The Act Cannot Be Exercised In The Normal Course. This Power Is Conceived As Emergency Power Or In Order To Remove Any Difficulties In Any Matter In Case Arises In Any Proceeding Conducted By The Board Under The Statutory Regulations And Therefore, Such Direction To The Director Of Education Who Is Also Chairman Of The Board Of High School And Intermediate Which Has Not The Element Of Being One Issued For Immediate Action, Or Emergency Powers Or To Remove Difficulty But It Is In The Normal Course Of Business. This Government Order Cannot Be Held As One Having Been Passed Under Section 9 (4) Of The Act. At The Most It Can Be Said To Be A Direction By The State Government To Address The Board Under Section 9 (1), Which Is In The Nature Of A Direction And Has No Statutory Force. The Question Whether Power Could Be Exercised By The Executive Under Some Emergency Or In Order To Remove Difficulties And What Is The Effect Of That Has Been Considered By A Constitution Bench Of The Apex Court Reported In Pratap Singh V. State Of Jharkhand 2005 SCC (3) P 551. In Paragraphs 107 And 108 Of The Said Decision, The Constitution Bench Of The Court Makes It Clear That The Central Government Has No Say In The Matter Nor It Could Exercise Such Powers By Resorting To Its Power To Remove Difficulties. The Rule Making Power Is A Separate Power And Has Got Nothing To Do With The Power To Remove Difficulties. By Reason Of The Power To Remove Difficulty Or Doubt, The Central Government Was Not Conferred Any Legislative Power. The Power To Remove Doubt Or Difficulty Although Is A Statutory Power But The Same Is Not Akin To A Legislative Power And Thus, Thereby The Provisions Of The Act Cannot Be Altered. In Such Situation, The State Of U.P. In Exercise Of Emergency Power Taking A Decision In Normal Situation Cannot By-pass Statutory Regulations And Issue The Impugned Government Order Which May Have Been Passed In Emergency Situation.

There Is Another Ground On Which Such Order Cannot Be Sustained. Normally, Any Government Order Having Trapping Of An Order Under Article 162 Of The Constitution Of India Is Issued In The Name Of Governor. The Government Order Impugned Herein By No Reckoning Can Be Termed As Being One Purporting To Be Under Article 162 Of The Constitution Inasmuch As It Was Not Issued In The Name Of Governor. Thus The Government Order Impugned Herein Is Simply An Administrative Order And Has No Statutory Force.

In Connection With The Above, Article 162 Of The Constitution May Be Quoted Below.
"154. Executive Power Of State.- (1) The Executive Power Of The State Shall Be Vested In The Governor And Shall Be Exercised By Him Either Directly Or Through Officers Subordinate To Him In Accordance With This Constitution.
(2) Nothing In This Article Shall-
(a) Be Deemed To Transfer To The Governor Any Functions Conferred By Any Existing Law On Any Other Authority; Or
(b) Prevent Parliament Or The Legislature Of The State From Conferring By Law Functions On Any Authority Subordinate To The Governor."
X X X X X X X X X
"162. Subject To The Provisions Of This Constitution, The Executive Power Of A State Shall Extend To The Matters With Respect To Which The Legislature Of The State Has Power To Make Laws;
Provided That In Any Matter With Respect To Which The Legislature Of A State And Parliament Have Power To Make Laws, The Executive Power Of The State Shall Be Subject To And Limited By, The Executive Power Expressly Conferred By This Constitution Or By Any Law Made By Parliament Upon The Union Or Authorities Thereof."


It Is Well Enunciated That A Government Order Cannot Override Statutory Provisions In Case The Statute Occupies A Particular Field. In The Present Case, The Statutory Regulations Framed With The Approval Of The State And Enforced After Notification In The Official Gazette Provided Complete Details And Competency Of The Examination Committee Of The Board Of High School And Intermediate Consisting Of Experts From Various Fields Of Education. In This View Of The Matter, Such Power Cannot Be Taken Away By Means Of This Government Order.

Learned Advocate General Next Urged That The Decision Of The Government By The Impugned Order Is A Policy Decision And The Court Are Not Competent To Interfere With The Policy Decision. In This Connection, He Relied Upon Paragraph 34 Of The Decision In Krishnan Kakkanth V. Govt Of Kerala 1997 SC 128 The Substance Of Which Is That Except For Limited Purposes Of Testing The Policy In The Context Of Illegality And Unconstitutionality, The Courts Should Avoid Embarking On Uncharted Ocean Of Policy. He Also Relied Upon Para 12 Of The Decision In Ekta Shakti Foundation V. Govt Of NCT Of Delhi JT 2006 (6) SC 500. In This Decision, It Has Been Held That A Policy Decision Of The Government Should Not Be Interfered With Unless There Is Infringement Of Fundamental Rights And Further The Court Should Not Substitute Its Own Judgment For Judgment Of The Executive In This Matter. He Also Relied Upon State Of Maharasthra V. Lok Shikshan Sansthan AIR 1973 SC 588 In Which It Has Been Held That The State Policy In The Matter Of Giving Permission To State Education Institution, The High Court Should Not Interfere So Long As Fundamental Rights And Principles Of Natural Justices Are Not Infringed Upon. The Next Decision Relied Upon Is State Of Rajasthan And Others V. Lata Arun (2002) 6 SCC 252. The Other Decisions Relied Upon Are State Of H.P. V. Padam Dev And Others 2002 (4) SCC 510, AIR 2001d SC 1739, Director Of Settlements A.P. V. M.R. Apparao And Anr. JT 2002 (3) SC 304.

This Court Has Already Dealt With The State Of Affairs Prevailing In The State Of U.P. As A Result Of Introduction Of Self Examination Centre Policy. The Scope Of Judicial Review On Any Policy Of State Has Been Dealt With By The Apex Court In The Case Law Cited By The Learned Advocate General In State Of Rajasthan And Others V. Lata Arun (2002) (6) SCC 252. The Relevant Portion Of Para 10 Of The Said Decision Being Germane To The Issue Raised By The Learned Advocate General Is Quoted Below.

"In An Appropriate Case The Court Can Examine Whether The Policy Decision Or The Administrative Order Dealing With The Matter Is Based On A Fair, Rational And Reasonable Ground; Whether The Decision Has Been Taken On Consideration Of Relevant Aspects Of The Matter; Whether Exercise Of The Power Is Obtained With Mala Fide Intention; Whether The Decision Serves The Purpose Of Giving Proper Training To The Candidates Admitted Or It Is Based On Irrelevant And Irrational Considerations Or Intended To Benefit An Individual Or A Group Of Candidates."

In The Light Of The Decisions Aforesaid, Dealing With The Scope Of Judicial Review Of The State Policy, This Court Has To See Qua The Facts Before The Court Whether The State Policy Is Conformity To Public Policy And Whether It Is Intended To Achieve The Purpose Of Constitutional Democracy And The Goal To Be Achieved As Held By The Apex Court In P.A. Inamdar V. State Of Maharasthra (supra) 2005 SCC 6537 Under Our Constitution And Whether The System Introduced By The Impugned Government Order Is Sub-serving The Purpose Of Educational In The State For Which The Intermediate Education Act Was Enacted.

Whether Any Scheme Or Executive Order Is In Accordance With The Public Policy Has Been Considered By The Apex Court In Murlidharan V. State Of U.P. AIR 1974 SC 1924. Paragraphs 30, 31 And 32 Of The Aforesaid Decision Being Relevant Are Excerpted Below.

"30. "Public Policy" Has Been Defined By Winfield As "a Principle Of Judicial Legislation Or Interpretation Founded On The Current Needs Of The Community". (See Percy H. Winfield, "Public Policy In English Common Law." 42 Harvard Law Rev. 76). Now This Would Show That The Interests Of The Whole Public Must Be Taken Into Account; But It Leads In Practice To The Paradox That In Many Cases What Seems To Be In Contemplation Is The Interest Of One Section Only Of The Public, And A Small Section At That. The Explanation Of The Paradox Is That The Courts Must Certainly Weigh The Interests Of The Whole Community As Well As The Interests Of A Considerable Section Of It, Such As Tenants For Instance, As A Class As In This Case. If The Decision Is In Their Favour, It Means No More Than That There Is Nothing In Their Conduct Which Is Prejudicial To The Nation As A Whole. Nor Is The Benefit Of The Whole Community Always A More Tacit Consideration. The Courts May Have To Strike A Balance In Express Terms Between Community Interests And Sectional Interests. So, Here We Are Concerned With The General Freedom Of Contract Which Every One Possesses As Against The Principle That This Freedom Shall Not Be Used To Subject A Class, To The Harassment Of Suits Without Valid Or Reasonable Grounds. Though There Is Considerable Support In Judicable Dicta For The View That Courts Cannot Create New Heads Of Public Policy, See Gherulal Parakh V. Mahadeodas Maiya, 1959 Supp (2) SCR 406 At P 440= (AIR 1959 SC 781), There Is Also No Lack Of Judicial Authority For The View That The Categories Of Heads Of Public Policy Are Not Closed And That There Remains A Broad Field Within Which Courts Can Apply A Variable Notion Of Policy As A Principle Of Judicial Legislation Or Interpretation Founded On The Current Needs Of The Community. See Dennis Lloyd, "Public Policy", (1953), Pp 112-113.

31. Public Policy Does Not Remain Static In Any Given Community. It May Vary From Generation To Generation And Even In The Same Generation. Public Policy Would Be Almost Useless If It Were To Remain In Fixed Moulds For All Time.

32. If It Is Variable, If It Depends On The Welfare Of The Community At Any Given Time, How Are The Courts To Ascertain It? The Judges Are More To Be Trusted As Interpreters Of The Law Than As Expounders Of Public Policy. However, There Is No Alternative Under Our System But To Vest This Power With Judges. The Difficulty Of Discovering What Public Policy Is At Any Given Moment Certainly Does Not Absolve The Judges From The Duty Of Doing So. In Conducting An Enquiry, As Already Stated, Judges Are Not Hide Bound By Precedent. The Judges Must Look Beyond The Narrow Field Of Past Precedents, Though This Still Leaves Open The Question, In Which Direction He Must Cast His Gaze. The Judges Are To Base Their Decision On The Opinions Of Men Of The World, As Distinguished From Op8inions Based On Legal Learning. In Other Words, The Judges Will Have To Look Beyond The Jurisprudence And That In So Doing, They Must Consult Not Their Own Personal Standards Or Predilections But Those Of The Dominant Opinion At A Given Moment, Or What Has Been Termed Customary Morality. The Judges Must Consider The Social Consequences Of The Rule Propounded Especially In The Light Of The Factual Evidence Available As To Its Probable Results................."


The Matter Was Again Considered By The Apex Court In Various Decisions Including Central Inland Water Transport Corporation V. Brojonath AIR 1986 SC 1571. The Relevant Part Of Para 93 Of This Decision Being Germane To The Issue Is Quoted Below.

"From The Very Nature Of Things, The Expressions "public Policy", Opposed To Public Policy", Or "contrary To Public Policy" Are Incapable Of Precise Definition. Public Policy, However, Is Not The Policy Of A Particular Government. It Connotes Some Matte5r Which Concerns The Public Good And The Public Interest. The Concept Of What Is For The Public Good Or In The Public Interest Or What Would Be Injurious Or Harmful To The Public Good Or The Public Interest Has Varied From Time To Time. As New Concepts Take The Place Of Old, Transactions Which Were Once Considered Against Public Policy Are Now Being Upheld By The Courts And Similarly Where There Has Been A Well Recognized Head Of Public Policy, The Courts Have Not Shirked From Extending It To New Transactions And Changed Circumstances And Have At Times Not Even Flinched From Inventing A New Head Of Public Policy."
X X X X X X X X X
It Is Thus Clear That The Principles Governing Public Policy Must Be And Are Capable, On Proper Occasion, Of Expansion Or Modification. Practices Which Were Considered Perfectly Normal At One Time Have Today Become Obnoxious And Oppressive To Public Conscience. If There Is No Head Of Public Policy Which Covers A Case, Then The Court Must In Consonance With Public Conscience And In Keeping With Public Good And Public Interest Declare Such Practice To Be Opposed To Public Policy. Above All, In Deciding Any Case Which May Not Be Covered By Authority Our Courts Have Before Them The Beacon Light Of The Preamble To The Constitution. Lacking Precedent, The Court Can Always Be Guided By That Light And The Principles Underlying The Fundamental Rights And The Directive Principles Enshrined In Our Constitution."


It Transpires From The Record That The State By A Government Order Dated 22.10.2003 Directed Director Of Board Of High School And Intermediate To Hold Examination Of High School And Intermediate In Such A Way That The Unfair Means Could Not Be Used And The Purity, Merit And Authenticity Of The Examination Should Be Maintained And Pass An Order That All The Examination Centres Should Be Within A Radius Of Eight Kms. Various Other Steps Were Directed To Be Taken So That Mass Copying And Unfair Means Could Be Eliminated. The Paragraph 1 To 22 Of The Said G.O. Are Quoted Below.





It Further Appears That All Of A Sudden By Govt Order Dated 28th Dec 2003 Issued By Special Secretary In The Directorate Of Education, Direction Was Issued That All The Examinations Of High School And Intermediate Shall Be Held In The Same Institution Where Students Are Being Taught. The System Introduced By The Aforesaid G.O. Is Called Self Examination Centre. The Only Exception Made Under This Letter Was That In Case Where The Serious Irregularities Were Found That Institution Cannot Be Approved As Self Examination Centre. The Government Order Dated 28.12.2003 Being Relevant Are Also Quoted Below.




It Would Appear That The Only Ground For Switching Over To The Self-examination Centre Was The "tender And Callow Age Of The Students". No Other Ground Is Set Out In The Said Order. The Well Established And Time Tested System Of Holding Examination In An Institution Other Than The Institution In Which Students Were Imparted Instructions Was Changed For This Reason Only And This System Was Allowed To Continue In 2005, 2006. The Consequence Resulting From Introduction Of Self Examination Centre System Has Been Discussed In The Preceding Paragraphs In All Requisite Details And I Need Not Repeat All These Details All Over Again Here At This Stage Except Saying That This System Has Brought In Its Train, All Its Evil Consequences I.e. Mass Copying, Rampant Use Of Unfair Means And If Any One Is Benefited In This Change Over Are Those Who Have Turned Education Into A Trade For Amassing Wealth By Promoting The Cause Of Their Own Institution By Hook Or By Crook.

Our Constitution As Well As The Apex Court Has Attached Great Significance To The Education And The Efficacy Of The System, Which, It Bears No Dispute, Is Essential For The Development Of Entire Civilization, Entire Society And Mankind, And Paves Way For Establishment Of Democratic Society And Furtherance Of Aims And Objects Of The Constitutional Democracy. The Economic Development Is The Predictable Result Of A Nation's Uncompromising Emphasis On Education. According To A Survey Among The Nations Of The World, India Ranks High In Innate Intelligence But Now With Repeated Tinkering With Education And Examination System, The Question Is Whether We Shall Be Able To Maintain The Excellence Of Our Education System To Cope With Global Competitiveness. What Is Of Consequence Is That We Should Guard Against Any Tinkering With The Education System For Nation's Sake. For This Purpose It Is The Duty Of The State To Take Tangible Steps So That Real Talent Of The Students May Be Developed And Students Who Toil Hard In Studies Throughout The Year And Are Averse To Using Unfair Means Should Not Get Discouraged Vis-??-vis The Students Who Are Not Interested In Education And Are More Inclined To Obtain Higher Marks By Hook Or Crook By Using Unfair Means. It Has Come On The Record That Out 14674 Examination Centres, Approximately 9944 Examination Centres Have Been Assigned To Unaided Recognized Schools/colleges. Most Of The Examination Centres Are Not Well Equipped And Lack In Requisite Infrastructure. The Unaided Recognized High School And Intermediate Colleges Are Of Two Kinds, As Has Crystallized From The Colloquy In Course Of Arguments, The First Category Consists Of Examination Centres Which Were Recognized According To Procedure After Due Verification Of All The Norms Under Section 7 (1) And 7 A Of The Intermediate Education Act And Second, Those Colleges Which Have Been Recognized By The State Directly Under Section 9 (4) Of The Intermediate Education Act. It Has Further Crystallized That Immediately After According Recognition Directly Under Section 9 (4) Of The Act, Those Institutions Were Also Approved As Examination Centres. It Is Not Unlikely That Such Examination Centres May Have Obtained Recognition Due The Clout Exercised In The Corridors Of Political Powers Without Going Through The Process Of Verification About The Norms Of Recognition. Though This Court Is Of The View That In Case Of Some Exceptional Cases Of Institutions Of National Importance, The State May Take Action Under Section 9 (4) Of The Act To Recognize Such Institution But In Any Case, They Could Not Be Approved For Being Made Examination Centre Immediately After Recognition In Exercise Of Power Under Section 9 (4) Of The Intermediate Education Act Directly By The State In Normal Course. The Practice Of Passing Orders Invoking The Power Under Section 9 (4) Of The Act By The State Where There Exists No Exceptional Circumstance, Cannot Be Appreciated. As Stated Supra, This Court Has Taken Note Of The Report Submitted To The Lucknow Bench Of This Court In A Writ Petition Detailed Above Relating To Mafia Operating In The Field Of Education. After Careful Consideration, The Said Committee Has Converged To The Conclusion That Education Mafias Have Got Foothold In The Education Field In The State Of U.P. In Such Situation, The Policy Of Recognizing The Institution For Imparting Instructions Upto The High School Or Intermediate By The State Under Section 9 (4) Of The Act And Making It A Centre For Examination Immediately Thereafter Appears To Be Highly Deplorable Being One Running Counter To The Public Policy. It Has Also Come On Record That Good Numbers Of Unaided Institutions Recognized Under Section 9 (4) Of The Act Do Lack In Infrastructure Necessary For Recognition Of The Institution And In Fact, They Are Opened For Examination Purposes For Making Easy Money In Collusion With Mafias Operating In The Education Field. By One Account, Even There Is Neither Any Proper Building Nor Any Other Infrastructure In Such Institutions, Which Are Essential For Recognition And For Holding Of Examinations As Examination Centres

In The Above Perspective Also, The Change-over To Self-examination Centre System Militates Against Public Policy Fraught With Consequences Of Eroding The Very Foundation Of Education System And Affect The Intellectual And Future Of The Country In Such A Way. Besides The Above, The Change-over To The System Has Been Exploited By The Influential Anti-social Elements Inasmuch As They Are Deeply Involved In The Mass Copying Or Other Unfair Means Who, It Is Also Ascertainable From The Record, Deploy A Number Of Non Teaching And Teaching Staff With The Object Of Facilitating Mass Copying And Using Of Unfair Means. In View Of The Above, This Court Cannot Shut Eyes Simply On The Ground As Urged By The Learned Advocate General That It Is A Policy Decision. The Court Can Certainly Take Into Consideration Whether Such Decision Is Rational In The Facts Of The Case And That It Does Not Run Counter To The Interest Of The Entire Society And Also That It Is In Accordance With Public Policy. The Courts Are Also Guided By The Preamble Of The Constitution That People Of India Adopted And Enacted The Constitution To Secure All Its Citizens Justice Social Economic And Political; Liberty Of Thought, Expression, Belief, Faith And Worship. It Has Come On Record That The Younger Generation Of The Country I.e. The Students Of High School And Intermediate Who Are The Future Of The Country, And Are Struggling Hard To Face The Challenges Ahead Of Them And To Develop Themselves To Achieve The Goal Of Quality Of Life Through Education Are Not In A Position To Protect Themselves From Such Powerful And Influential Elements Who Have Partially Grabbed The System By Getting Opportunity On A Platter In The Guise Of Self-examination Centre And In Case It Is Allowed They May Grab The Entire Education System.

In View Of The Above, This Court Is Of The View That The G.O. No. 4005/15.7.061(146)/06 Dated 29.9.2006 Introducing The Scheme For Self Examination Centre Being Against The Public Policy Is Unsustainable In Law.

This Court While Issuing Show Cause Notice Has Given Details Of The Facts And Circumstances Brought To The Notice Of The Court And The State Was Called Upon To Show Cause But The State Has Not Shown Cause To That Notice Properly Except Raising The Technical Objection About Policy Matter And Other Questions Of Law. The Learned Advocate General Simply Said After Putting In Appearance That The Matter Of Mass Copying Has Been Raised Erroneously In The Self Centre Scheme And Further That The State Of U.P. Has Taken Several Remedial Steps With The Result That More Than 566 Self Centres Were De-recognized As Self Examination Centre. Except This The State Of U.P. Has Not Been Able To Show Cause Why This System Of Self-examination Centre System, Which According To Discussions Made Above, Has Done More Harm Than Any Good In The World Of Education, Should Not Be Allowed To Continue.

In View Of The Above, The Arguments Of The Learned Advocate General That This Being Policy Decision, The Court Cannot Interfere With It Does Not Commend To Me For Acceptance. In My Considered View, Such Policy Militates Against The Public Policy And Therefore It Is Liable To Be Struck Down.

Coming To The Viability Of Unaided Recognized Institutions, It Is Quite Explicit From The Details Adverted To The Notice Of The Court That Most Of The Unaided Institutions Have Been In The Fore-front Employing All Sorts Of Methods In The Rate Race Of Getting Higher Percentage Of Passing The Students Ostensibly With The Avowed Object Of Currying Favour With The Government To Be Able To Obtain Permanent Recognition And To Come In The Grant-in-aid List Or Secure Other Benefits As Contemplated In Chapter VII Regulations (3) Or (4) Of The Regulations. The Newly Unaided Institutions Are Normally Involved In Seeking Higher Percentage Of Pass Students And Good Division Of The Students So That They May Get Permanent Recognition Or They May Come Under Grant In Aid List Of The Government. For This Purpose The Management And The Principals Of The Large Number Of Unaided Colleges Recognized Under Section 9 (4) Of The Intermediate Education Act Are Inclined To Take All Such Steps So That Percentage Of Pass Students And The Division Of The Students May Increase. It Is Further Brought To The Notice Of The Court That Teachers And Principals Of The Unaided Institution Are Neither Secure In Service Nor There Is Any Statutory Provision To Govern Fixation Of Their Salaries. They Are Getting Meagre Salary As Part Time Teachers At The Sweet Will Of The Management And There Is No Disciplinary Or Other Control Of The Board Over Them. Their Services Are At The Pleasure Of Management And In The Process They Become Willing Tool In The Hands Of The Management To Do Their Bidding. In Such A Situation Introduction Of Self-centre In Such Colleges Is Not Only Irrational But Arbitrary, And Unwarranted And This Obtrusive Fact Has Not Been Taken Note Of By The State While Passing This Impugned Order. As Mentioned Above, The State Has Taken Only One Ground For Introduction Of The New System I.e. Tender And Callow Age Of The Students.

From The Arguments Of The Learned Advocate General It Clearly Transpires That All Of A Sudden Only For Safety And Security In Transportation Of Students Of Tender Age, The Self-examination System According To The State Was Introduced By The Government Order Dated 23.12.2003. The Safety And Security, It Bears No Dispute, Is A Law And Order Problem And Lies Within The Exclusive Domain Of The State Of U.P. And In Case This Was The Main Plank Of Issuing The Government Order Dated 23.12.2003 And The G.O. Dated 29.9.2006 Instead Of Taking Effective Steps For Maintaining Law And Order Situation In The State Of U.P. During Examination Throughout The State Of U.P., This Cannot Furnish Foundation For A Change Over To A New System Brushing Aside The Well Established Examination System Of Establishing Examination Centres In The Colleges Other Than The Colleges Where The Teaching Has Been Imparted To Such Students As Self Examination Centre. The Experience Of The Last Three Years Goes To Show That Instead Of Doing Any Good To The System, It Has Aggravated Several Problems Staring The Education System The Details Of Which Have Already Been Delineated Above. The Well-established System Worked Efficiently From The Very Inception Uptill 2003 And There Has Not Been Any Complaint From Any Quarter That System Had Lost Its Efficacy Or It Was Resulting In Any Trouble To Students Appearing In High School And Intermediate Examinations. To The Contrary, All The Students Who Appeared In High School And Intermediate Examinations According To The Prevailing System Prior To 2003, Used To Appear The Examination Independently And This Even Encouraged Such Students To Inculcate Positive Attitude And Strengthened Competencies To Prepare Themselves For The Competitiveness In All The Future Examinations And Competitions. This Court Does Not View With Equanimity The Arguments Advanced By Learned Advocate General That In Their Own Institution, In Case The Students Are Permitted To Appear, They Would Feel More At Ease And Free In The Examination And Therefore, The System Of Self Examination Centre Should Be Countenanced.

Coming To Grasp With The Arguments Citing Security And Safety Of Students As A Means For Introducing The System Of Self Examination Centre, The Court Is Of The View That In Case The State Feels That The Object Underlying The Introduction Of System Of Self Examination Centre Was The Safety And Security Of The Students, Then It Is Advised To Take All Effective Steps To Beef Up The Security For Protection Of Students And Teachers And Non Teaching Staff Deployed At The Examination Centres But At The Same Time, I Would Not Hesitate To Say, It Cannot Be Made A Ground To Brush Aside The Well Established System Which Has Withstood The Test Of Time Eversince Its Inception.

Sri Rajeshwar Yadav, Appearing For The Petitioners Of Unaided Institutions Urged That Unaided Institutions Should Not Be Excluded From Being Made Examination Centres. He Further Urged That Unaided Institutions Are Rendering Great Service To The Society Particularly Those Having Meagre Income And Within Limited Means, They Are Paying Sustainable Wages To The Teachers And Employees, Thus, Helping The Society To Cushion The Blow Of Rampant Unemployment. This Court Is Conscious Of The Services Of These Unaided Institutions But At The Same Time, It Is Concerned With The Poorly Equipped Unaided Institutions, And Their Efficacy In Promoting The Cause Of Education In The Society. In This View Of The Matter, The Court Is Of The View That Only Well Equipped Unaided Institutions May Be Preferred For Being Considered For Examination Centres But At The Same Time Regard Being Had To The Fact That Such Institutions Can Be Considered For Being Made Examination Centre After Efflux Of Three Years Statutory Requirements From The Date Of Recognition Under Section 7 (1) (A) Of The Intermediate Education Act Attended With Other Essential Statutory Requirements Necessary For The Purpose And In 2007 Examination The Unaided Schools/colleges Recognized Under Section 9 (4) Of The Intermediate Education Act Shall Not Be Considered For Being Considered For Holding Examinations As Examination Centres.

By Way Of Show Cause Notice, This Court Also Called Upon The State To Enlighten Whether The State Has Taken Any Steps To Regulate The Procedure For Selection And Appointment Of Teachers And Principals In The Unaided Schools/colleges And Also The Fee Structure And Also The Procedure Relating To Salary To Teachers. In Response To It, A Government Order Was Produced Before Me A Perusal Of Which Would Show That The Selection Of Teachers And Principals Shall Be Made By A Selection Committee Consisting Of Members Of The Committee Of Management. It Does Not Indicate That Selection So Made By The Selection Committee Shall Require Any Approval By Any Authorities. So Far As Teachers And Employees Of Unaided Schools/colleges Are Concerned, My Attention Has Been Drawn To The Government Order Dated Ist August 2001 Issued By The Government Prescribing The Procedure Of Appointment For Part Time Teachers Of The Unaided Colleges Recognized By Section 7 (1) (A) Of The Act. In This Connection, What Is Worthy Of Notice Is That There Is No Procedure Provided For Selection, Recruitment Of Teachers And Principals Of The Unaided Colleges And Such Staff Including Examination Superintendent Are Neither Selected Nor Appointed Through Any Government Machinery Nor Is There Any Say Of The State In This Matter And By This Reckoning, They Are Exclusively Private Employees Without Any Disciplinary Control Of The Board. In Such Circumstances, The Way-ward Manner In Which The Appointment Of Principals And Teachers In The Unaided Institutions Is Made, Leaves The Examination Further Vulnerable And Has Resulted In Manifold Increase In The Menace Of Mass Copying, And Use Of Unfair Means. Such Teachers And Principals Whose Appointment Is At The Sweet Will Of The Management And Therefore They Are More Prone To Do Bidding Of The Masters Instead Of Having The Interest And Also Interest Of Education At Their Heart And They Are Not Able To Resist And Prefer To Blink At Intervention By The Mafias In The Examination Centres.

My Attention Has Been Drawn To The Fact That There Is No Principal Secretary (Education) In The Government Of U.P. For The Last Several Years. Sri Brij Mohan Meena, Held The Charge Of Secretary Secondary Education Before His Transfer To The Department Of Prashashnik Sudhar About One Year Back And Eversince Then No Secretary Has Been Posted As Yet. This Alone Should Serve As A Wake-call About The Pathetic State Of Affairs In The Education Department. It Has Been Brought To The Notice Of The Court That A Special Secretary Has Been Assigned To Discharge The Function Of Education Secretary And Has Been Looking After The Work Of Recognition As Well As Examinations. In This Peculiar Circumstances, This Court Considers It Appropriate That Sri Brij Mohan Meena Who Was Working As Secretary Secondary Education Should Be Deputed To Look After The Work Of Education Secretary In Addition To His Present Work Of Secretary Prashashnik Sudhar Till The Result Of Examinations Of High School And Intermediate Is Taken To Some Finality.

Learned Counsel Appearing For The State Authorities Brought O The Notice Of The Court The Government Order Dated 11th Dec 1984 And The Learned Advocate General Urged On The Dint Of The Said Government Order That The Term Of The Board Constituted And Notified In The Official Gazette Dated 3rd July 1981 Has Expired After 3 Years And Thereafter No Board Has Been Constituted So Far And At Present, The Functions Of The Board Are Being Discharged By The Chairman And The Secretary With The Aid Of Ex-officio Members. What Springs Surprise To Me Is That Approximately 50 Lacs Students Are Appearing In High School And Intermediate Examinations This Year Whose Fate Hinges On Adhoc Arrangement Regard Being Had That The Properly Constituted Board Has Not Functioned For The Last 22 Years And The Entire Education System Is Surviving On Adhoc Arrangement. It May Be Recalled Here That Under Section 3 Of The U.P. Intermediate Education Act And The Bye-laws Of The Board, The Board Consists Of 55 Members And For Quorum To Be Complete At Least 1/3rd Members Are Required To Be Present. From A Perusal Of The Provisions Of Section 3 (1) Of The Act, It Would Transpire That Quorum Qua The Full Strength Of 55 Members Cannot Be Said To Be Complete For The Last 22 Years Even With The Aid Of The Ex-officio Members Enlisted In The Board. As Has Been Discussed Above, The Education Is A National Wealth And The Students Appearing In High School And Intermediate Examinations Get Diversified Into Various Fields Immediately After Intermediate Examinations Such As Medical, Engineering And For Higher Studies And In Various Courses-professional And Non-professional. The Attention Of The Court Has Also Been Drawn To The Fact That The Secretary Of The Board Should Be Of The Rank Of Joint Director Of Education But An Officer Of The Rank Of Additional Director Has Been Deployed To Look After The Work Of Secretary And No Regular Secretary Has Been Appointed So Far. This Court Has Taken Note Of All These Facts And Is Also Conscious Of The Significance Of Education And Also That Such A Situation Will Affect The Entire Society And People At Large. In The Conspectus Of The Above Discussions, This Court Makes Following Orders In The Writ Petitions At Hand.

(1) In So Far As Writ Petition No. 31482 Of 2006 Is Concerned, It Is Allowed And The Government Order Dated 23.9.2006 And The Consequential Orders Passed By The Board Are Quashed And Writ Of Mandamus Is Issued To The State Government To Hold Examinations On The Principles Contained In G.O. Dated 23.10.2003.

(2) In So Far As Writ Petition No. 7339 Of 2006 Is Concerned, No Case Is Made Out For Interference With The Order Passed For Withholding The Result Of The Students. However The Interim Order Already Passed And Operating Is Made Absolute And The Students Shall Be Permitted To Appear In The Examination 2007 Accordingly Provided The Attendance Of Those Students Is Not Less Than 75% And They Are Otherwise Entitled To Appear In The Examination. The Writ Petition Aforesaid Is Disposed Of Accordingly In Terms Of The Above.

(3) In So Far As Writ Petition No. 46461 Of 2006 And 53414 Of 2006 And 54012 Of 2006 And 534134 Of 2006 Are Concerned, The Main Grievance In These Petitions Is That The Management Was Not Heard. In The Facts And Circumstances Of The Case, It Is Directed That In Case Petitioners' Institutions Prefer Representation Afresh To The Committee Of The Board, The Same Shall Be Looked Into And Disposed Of Accordingly Within 15 Days In Accordance With Law. It Needs Hardly Be Said That Such Orders Shall Be Informed With Reasons.

(4) In The Facts And Circumstances, A Writ Of Mandamus Is Issued Commanding The State Of U.P. To Constitute Board In Terms Of Section 3 Of The Intermediate Education Act Expeditiously.

(5) The Opp. Parties Are Also Directed To Ensure That Students Of High School And Intermediate May Be Permitted To Appear In Their Respective Examinations Only After Their Attendance To The Extent 75% Is Complete As Require In Chapter XII Regulation 5 (1) (2) And (3) Unless Exempted In Accordance With Law Attended With Further Direction For Taking Further Steps In Accordance With The High School And Intermediate Education Act, Regulations Framed Thereunder And The Calendar Of The Board And Also Regard Being Had To The Directions/observations Made In The Body Of This Judgment.

Considering The Alarming Situation Staring The State Education System As Delineated Above, This Court Is Of The View That The State Of U.P. Be Directed To Post A Regular Secretary Acquainted With The Working Of The Board And In Case, No Such Official Is Available, Sri Brij Mohan Meena, Secretary Prashashnik Sudhar Who Was Earlier Held The Charge And Is Said To Be Fully Conversant With The Working Of The Board Prior To His Transfer To The Present Station, May Be Assigned The Additional Charge Of Education Secretary Till Completion Of Ensuing Examinations Of The High School And Intermediate Who It Is Directed Shall Ensure Smooth Conduct Of The Examination Upto The Stage Of Declaration Of Result And To Assist The Examination Authorities And To Present Report Fortnightly From Time To Time About The Progress Made For Smooth Conduct Of Examination 2007 Scheduled To Commence From 17th March 2007. It Is Further Directed That The Examination Centres Shall Be Established At Places Abutting The Road And The State Shall Also Take All Effective Measures For Safety To Facilitate Smooth Conduct Of Examination Of High School And Intermediate Free From All Kinds Of Disturbances Of Anti Social Elements/educational Mafias.

No Suggestion Has Been Put Forth Before The Court For Enhancing Security And Safety At The Examination Centres. In So Far As Safety And Security Is Concerned It Is Necessary To Enlist The Views Of The Secretary So Posted By The Government. It Is Then That The Court Would Have No Difficulty In Issuing Appropriate Directions. It Is Further Directed That That The Examination Centres Shall Be Established Strictly In Accordance With Norms Fixed In G.O. Dated 23.10.2003 Within A Period Of One Month.

The Writ Petitions Aforesaid Shall Be Listed On 21.1.2007 For Evaluation Of The Progress Made For Smooth Conduct Of The Examinations Of High School And Intermediate 2007.

Go to Navigation