CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION versus MS. VINEETA MAHAJAN AND ANR.

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 387 · Decided: 15-10-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH, S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION 
A 
v. 
MS. VINEETA MAHAJAN AND ANR.' 
OCTOBER 15, 1993 
[KULDIP SINGH AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.) 
B 
Central Board of Secondary Education Examinali~n Bye- law.s-Rule 
36.l(iv)(a}-Use of unfair means at the examination-No distinction between 
malafide or bona-fide possession of material relevant to the examina-
tion-Recovery thereof-Effect of-Even though the incriminating material C 
was not us~d candidate was guilty of using unfair means. 
The Respondent was appearing for Class XU examination. In the 
enmlnation hall she was found In possession of three small pieces of 
paper kept in her pendl box. The Result Committee of the Appellant-· 
Board Initiated proceedings against her for using unfair means at the .D. 
eiauninati'on. Before the Committee Respondent a~ltted having kept the 
said papers In the pendl box but stated that she did not use the same while 
answering the question paper. She also stated that since she arrived late 
for the examination,· she was utterly confused and panicky and ~o she 
forgot to remove the papers before entering the hall. When questioned E 
about the warning given In the examination ball as regards possession of 
undesirable material by the examinees, the respondent answered that she 
was too tense to hear the warning. 
The Committee found the· respondent guilty of using unfair means 
at the examination and as a punishment her examination for the year 1993 F 
was cancelled. She challenged the said order by way of a writ petition 
before the High Court, which allowed the writ petition and quashed the 
punishment awarded to the respondent. 
Against the High Court's order, the Board preferred the present G 
appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Rule 36.l(iv)(a) of the Examination Bye-laws framed by 
the Central Board or Secondary Education clearly defines "the use or ( H 
387 
388 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R .. 
A 
unfair means at the examination" and lays down in simple languagt> thl't 
a candidate having in possession, papers relevant to the examination in 
the paper concerned, shall be deemed to have used unfair means at the 
examination. The sine qua 11011, for the misconduct under the rule, is the 
recovery of the incriminating material from the possession of the can-
B 
didate. Once the candidate is found to be in possession of papers relevant 
to the examination, the requirement of the Rl!le is satisfied and there is 
no escape from the conclusion that the candidate has used unfair means 
at the examination. The Rule does not make any distinction between bona 
fide or ma/a fide possession· of the incriminating material. (390-E-G] 
C 
1.2. In the instant case, may be because of strict vigilance in the 
examination hall the candidate was not in a position to take out the papers 
from the pencil box and use the same. The very fact that she took the 
papers relevant to the examination in the paper concerned and was found 
to be in possession of the same by the invigilatot in the examination hall 
is sufficient to prove the charge of using unfair means by, her in the 
D examination under the Rule. (390-H, 391-A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5450 of 
1993. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.8.1993 of the High Court of 
Delhi in Civil Writ Petition No. 3714/93. 
F 
P.P. Rao, Rajeev Sharma, T.C. Sharma, Ms. Rajni K. Prasad and 
Neelam Sharma for the Appellant. 
G. Ramaswamy, S.K. Mehta and K.L. Mehta for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KULDIP SINGH, J. Special leave granted. 
· Vineeta Mahajan, respondent in this appeal, appeared in Class XII 
G examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education, 
Delhi, in the month of March, 1993. She sat for the Political Science paper 
on March 16, 1993 in the said examination. During the course of examina-
tion, the invigilator found the respondent in possession of written-material 
in the shape of three small pieces of paper kept in the pencil box. The 
H matter was reported to the Central Surerintendent. Proceedings in respect 
C.B.S.E.'i" MS. VINEETA [KlJLDEEP SINGH,J.] 
389 
of the charge "for using unfair means at the examination" were initiated hy A 
the Result Committee of the Board. The respondent was examined hy the 
said Committee on July 19, 1993. She admitted having kept the said papers 
in the pencil hox hut she stated that she had not used the same while 
answering the question paper. According to her 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.