CHAIRMAN, J AND K STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION versus FEYAZ AHMED MALIK AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 1 S.C.R. 402 · Decided: 28-01-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. JAGANNADHA RAO, D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

A
CHAIRMAN, J AND K STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
v.
FEYAZ AHMED MALIK AND ORS.
JANCARY 28, 2000
B
(M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.]
Education :
J & K Board of School Education Ac~ 1975-Sections 4, IO(ii), (iii),
C (ix), (xvii), (xxi), (xrv), (xxix), 13(4), 24, 25(iv), (xiii), 33(2) (a), (f), (j), (shf
& K Board of Secondary Education Regulations, 1967-Amendment adding
Regulations 66( a) & (b) by Notification-Chairman given extensive power to
cancel examinations if mass copying reported-Examination for May-June
Session 1993 cancelled by Notification--Examinees challenged Notifications
in Writ Petition-High Court quashed both Notifications and set restricted
D parameters for framing new Regulations-On appeal, Held, Board consisting
of experienced men having duty to maintain standards of education, is
empowered to frame regulations and delegate powers to the Chainnan or any
office~otification issued with power and authority of Board, not arbitrary
or discriminatory.
E
F
Constitution of India-Article 226-Scope of inteif erence in educational
matters-Held, High Court should not substitute its view over the views of
expert body like the Board-Power to intervene only to co"ect non-com-
pliance of Rules, Regulations and Notifications-Purpose to be achieved by
relevant rules to be kept in mind.
Constitution of b1dic~Article 14-Power of Board to frame Regula-
tions-Held, Board has power and the Regulations cannot be struck down as
they are likely to cause injustice to some candidates.
Appellant-Board amended the existing regulations to curb mass
G copying and ·outside interference violating sanctity of examinations at the
Higher Secondary level. The Chairman of the Board was given extensive
powers to cancel examinations, if such acts were reported. The examina·
tions held in May-June Session 1993 were cancelled and some aggrieved
examinees filed a writ petition in the High Court. The High Court struck
H do\'l'Jl the cancellation order alongwith the said amendments holding them
402
CHAIRMAN,J&KSTATE BOARD OF EDUCATION v.F.A MALIK 403
to h~ nltra virus of Artic!:e 14 of the Constitution of India 1md the Jarnmu A
& :wbmir B1111rd of School Educntim1 Act, 1975. Directions \;·ere r..!so
isstied for fornnin3 a committee to lo11~t into the matter and re-eximiil!.:e the
answer scripts to ascertain the positio111. The Board vms given lib:erty to
frame fresh rull~s but within certain parameters. The present appeal is
filed 11g11inst the High Court's orders.
The appellant conte111ded before this Court that the Hieb Court had
erred in q11ashi113 the notilicatio111s and the regulatio111s as they were framed
by the Board which was constituted by the Government consistinn of
experienced me111; and that abnormal situatio111 prevailing in the State
necessitated such measures.
Allowing the appeal, this Court
B
c
Htl:LD : 1. Tne J & i( Educutlou Bo11rd Is constituted to edvise the
State Government in policy mDtters relating to educntion nnd 111so to
regulate establishment of educational Institutions und to ensure their D
proper functioninn. It is also vested with the power to conduct exarnina·
tions for a\'Yllrding certilicutes und diplomas tll successful c1mdldlltes. It
Is 11lso vested with power to constitute commlttets for difa"erect plllrpos:es,
to dl!lq:ute Its functions to these committees or any ofiicers of th.ii! 1lo:ml.
The Boord co111sldered It advisable to delegate the power In favour of Its E
Ch11l:rman and no exception can be tu!ren to It on the crotlnd of wunt of
powa-. The Chairman acts ns 11 delegute of the Boord and 1my cction tulren
11:r 11rder p11ssed by him cannot be faulted on the cround of Ice!~ of
competence or 11uthority. [412·A·D]
2. While juq;ng the authority or the steps talren by the Boord it
shoold be b11rne in mind that It is entrusted v.ith the duty 11f 1:U1lntalninn
hicber standards of education and proper conduct of examl1U1tions. It is
11n expert body consisting of persons coming from difi'ec:ent l;11llis of life,
enClllled in or interested in the field of education, huving wide exp:ril?nce
11nd their dl!Cislon should be given due weightage by courts. [412-F·G]
Bihar School Education Board v. Subhash Chandra, A.I.It (1970) SC
1269, relied on.
Rajiv Ratna Shukla and,Another v. University of Allahabad, A.I.R.
F
G
(1987) All. 208, approved.
H
404
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2Cv":J) 1 S.C.R.
A
3.1. In ::mtt::rs co:i:cemicg campus discip

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