MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OF SECONDARY AND HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION versus K.S. GANDHI AND ORS.

Citation: [1991] 1 S.C.R. 772 · Decided: 12-03-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.M. KASLIWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OF SECONDARY AND 
.... 
HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION 
' 
r 
\. 
v. 
K.S. GANDHI AND ORS. 
,,---
MARCH 12, 1991 
B 
-
[N.M. KASLIWAL AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Board Act, 1965/ 
~ 
Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Board Regulation 
1977: Sections 4, 18 and 23/Regulations 9(2)(XVIII) and 14---Mark-
c sheets found tampered with-Enquiry held-Tampering with know-
_,,_r -
ledge or consent of candidates parents or guardians-Students alone to 
take part in the inquiry-Advocates, parents or guardians not allowed_ 
..... 
Validity of enquiry. 
The appellant-Board conducted secondary examinations in the 
'r 
D month of March 1990. During recounting of the marks obtained by the 
candidates it was found that moderators' mark-sheets relating to 283 
examinees, which included the 53 respondents, had been tampered 
with. The declaration of their results was withheld pending enquiry. 
Several writ petitions were tiled against non-declaration of the results 
and the High Court directed the appellant to take expeditious action to 
·~ 
E declare the results. 
The Board appointed seven enquiry officers to conduct the 
enquiry. Show cause notices were issued to the students informing them 
of the nature of tampering, the subjects in which the marks were found 
--
tampered with, the marks initially obtained and the marks increased 
F due to tampering, and also indicated the proposed punishment, if in the 
enquiry it would be found that marks wer.e tampered with the know-
ledge or connivance or at the instance of the candidates or parents or 
--.., 
guardians. They were also informed that they would be at liberty to 
,.-""'\' 
inspect the documents at the Divisional Board at Bombay; they were 
entitled to adduce documentary and oral evidence at the hearing; they 
G 
would also be permitted to cross-examine the witnesses of the Board, if 
any; they would not be entitled .to appear through an advocate, and the 
...
parents or guardians would be permitted to accompany the students at 
-~ 
the time of enquiry, but they would not be entitled to take part in the 
..
enquiry. 
H 
All the candidates admitted that the marks initially awarded by 
772 
M.B.O.E. v. K.S. GANDHI 
773 
-~ the examiners had been tampered with in the moderators' mark-sheets; 
and due to tampering the marks were increased and the increase was to 
their advantage. However, they denied that either they or their parents 
or guardians were privy to the tampering. 
The Enquiry Officers submitted their reports holding that the 
moderators' mark-sheets had been fabricated and submitted the 
.>-___reports to the Board. The Standing Committee constituted in this 
.~ 
·regard considered the records and the reports and resolved to withhold, 
A 
B 
as a measure of punishment, the declaration of the results of their 
exami.llations and to debar the students to appear in the supplementary 
.... ·:-. · 
examination. The notification to that effect was published on 31.8.1990 
-
and the report submitted to the High Court. 
The High Court allowed the writ petitions. One Hon'ble Judge 
~· held that the Standing Committee was devoid of power, and because it 
did not obtain the approval of the Divisional Board, the impugned 
notification was without authority of law. On merits, the learned Judge 
c 
held that the Standing Committee did not apply its mind in the proper 
D 
perspective to the material facts, and therefore, the fmding that 
tempering was done at the instance of the examinees /parents /guardians 
was perverse. The other Hon'ble Judge held that the examinees were 
~ not guilty of the mal-practices and their guilt had not been established. 
Before this Court, it was contended on behalf of the respondents 
E 
that the Act empowered the Divisional Board to deal with the use of 
=-
unfair means at the fmal examination, and the Standing Committee was 
an alien body to the Divisional Board; the students were minors and 
neither the parents nor anybody like an advocate was permitted to 
assist the students; answers to the questionnaire were extracted from 
the students to confess their guilt; no adequate opportunity was given to 
F 
~ 
the students at the enquiry; the evidence without subjecting it to cross-
examination was of no value; the Standing Committee did not apply its 
mind to the facts, nor recorded reasons in support of its conclusion that 
· the examinee /parents /guardians were parties to the fabrication

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