RAJESH KUMAR AND ANR. versus THE INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERS (INDIA)

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 90 · Decided: 25-07-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
C 
RAJESH KUMAR AND ANR. 
v. 
THE INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERS (INDIA) 
JULY 25, 1997 
[M.M. PUNCHHI AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] 
Education: 
Institute of Engineers (India}-Examinations-Results of some can-
didates withheld for adopting unfair means and malpractices in the exami11a-
tions-£xplanations of examinees not accepted-Results of the said 
examinees cancelled-Suit by two of the said examinees before Civil 
Court-When the matter came before the High Court, it directed the Institute 
to redecide the matter-This time the Institute adopted a new technique to 
test the ability of the examinees and decided the matter against them-Held, 
D the orders of the Institute in cancelling the results of the appellants' examina-
tions and disqualifying them for two succeeding examinations were in access 
of jurisdiction and are quashe~ The Institute should declare the result of the 
examinees forthwith. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5057 of 
E 1997. 
F 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.7.96 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 9699 of 1996. 
M.K. Dua for the Appellants. 
Dr. Shankar Ghosh, P. Addy, Ghanshyam Joshi and A.K. Dutta for 
the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
The two appellants, Rajesh Kumar and Harbir Singh appeared in the 
AIME Group 'B' examination conducted by the respondent-Institute of 
Engineers (India) on June 1, 1990. Their centre was at Tagore School, 
· H Kamal. No case of copying or any malpractice was ever noticed or reported 
90 
RAJESH KUMAR v. INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERS (INDIA) 
91 
by the supervisory staff attending the examination. Somewhere in October A 
1990, the two appellants along with the 11 other examinees received 
identical notices from the respondent-Institute seeking their explanation on 
the allegations of copying and malpractices mentioned therein. The con-
tents of the notice were that the examiner evaluating the answer books of 
the examinees had reported that 13 examinees had resorted' to copying: in B 
as much as their answe.rs to some of the questions in the examination were 
exactly the same and that on that basis it was thought that the examinees 
had adopted unfair means. The two appellants submitted their replies to 
the allegations stating that similarity in the answer books could be as a 
result of the preparation from the same text books as available in the 
market and that the question of copying could not arise as would be evident C 
from the sitting plan of the examinees. Further, it was stated that none of 
them was close to another and all were in different rooms. The paper in 
question was known as 'Quantity, Surveying and Valuation' - Section B. 
The plea of the examinees was negatived by the Institute and each ex-
aminee was conveyed that his results for the examination of the year 1990 D 
stood cancelled and further debarring him from appearing in the two 
immediately following examinations of the Institute i.e. upto the summer 
of the year 1991, for adopting unfair means and malpractices. 
Aggrieved, the two appellants joining one Kuldip Raj put to chal-
lenge the order of the Institute-respondent by means of Civil Writ E 
Petition No. 4259 of 1991 in the Punjab and Haryana High Court which 
when placed before a Division Bench of that Court, was permitted to 
be withdrawn on November 19, 1991 with permission to file a civil suit. 
Thereupon, those three writ petitioners approached the Civil Court 
seeking to annul the offending communication and for mandatory in-
F 
junction requiring the Institute to declare their results. The institute 
contested the suit, Requisite issues were framed. On consideration of 
the pleadings and the evidences led by the parties, the trial Court 
decreed the suit holding that the non-speaking order of the Institute, 
bereft of any reason, and the conclusion that the plaintiffs were guilty G 
of unfair means, was without any basis. Direction was given to the 
Institute to declare the results of the plaintiffs. The first appellate Court 
in appeal at the instance of the Institute reversed the judgment and 
decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit in holding that when the 
plaintiffs had appeared in the subsequent examinations after the period 
when their disqualification was over, no purpose would be served in H 
92 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
decreeing the suit. 
In second appeal before the High Court, the plaintiffs emerged 
succe

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