S. Pranav and others v Union of India and Others

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 30TH CHAITHRA, 1940** **WP(C).No. 11927 of 2018** **--------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)** **-------------** - **1 S. PRANAV, S/O. P.N. SUMAN, PRANAVAM, JAWAHAR NAGAR, KANJIKODE WEST P.O., ALAKKAD-678 623.** - **2 APARNA K., D/O. RATHI K. P., THIPPALOOR PISHARAM, PANANGAD, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD.** - **3 RISWAN ABDUL NAZAR, S/O. ABDUL NAZAR, TOOPAS, VENGOLI POST, PALAKKAD-678 622.** - **4 LAKSHMI K., D/O. P. ARAVIND, KRISHNA KRIPA, VENGOLI POST, PALAKKAD-678 622.** - **5 ANASWARA K., D/O. RAVEENDRAN, SANKARANKANDATHIL HOUSE, CHULLIMADA, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD-678 621.** - **6 HARISANKAR S., S/O. V.P. SATHEESH, E1, VAIJAYANTHI HOUSE, KAILAS NAGAR, PUTHUSSERY, PALAKKAD -678 623.** - **7 S. SOORYA, D/O. M. SWAMINATHAN, IL QUARTERS, K 33 IL TOWNSHIP, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD-678 623.** - **8 K. GOPIKA, D/O. APPUKUTTAN THACHATH, 302, STAR BAY, AYYAPURAM, PALAKKAD-678 003.** - **9 RAVEENA K., D/O. AJITHA S., REVATHY BHAVAN, KUNUPPULLY, POTTEKKAD POST, PALAKKAD.** - **10 DARSANA RAGHUNATH, D/O. RAGHUNATH P.R., 13, SOUPARNIKA, KAILAS NAGAR, KANJIKODE WEST P.O., PALAKKAD-678 623.** - **11 ABHILASH K.NAIR, S/O. KARUNAKARAN C., SREE PADMAM, CHETHANATHAKALAM, KUZHALMANNAM POST, PALAKKAD-678 702.** **WP(C).No. 11927 of 2018** **12 ARJUN S., S/O. SUNDARAN S., SOPANAM, POOKKAARATHOTTAM, NEAR CO-OPERATIVE COLLEGE, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD-678 002.** - **13 RESHMA R., D/O. S. RAJAN, 183, SOUPARNIKA, NAKSHATHARA NAGAR, PIRIVUSALA, PALAKKAD-678 007.** - **14 DINESH D., S/O. DEVADAS P.L., KARTHIKA, KENATHUPARAMBA, PALAKKAD-678 013.** **15 KARUNYA K., D/O. KANNAN C., RUGMINI NIVAS, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD-678 621. 16 SONIA S., D/O. SUMATHY SURESH, SUMATHI NIVAS, PRECOT MILL COLONY, KANJIKODE- 678 623. 17 HEMANTH V., S/O. VISWAN G., QUARTERS NO. A 25/2, MCL TOWNSHIP, WALAYAR P.O., PALAKKAD. 18 PRABITA P., D/O. P.V. PREMAN, PANAKKAL HOUSE, PRECOT MILL NEW COLONY, KANJIKODE WEST, PALAKKAD -678 623. 19 AJAI K., S/O. JYOTHI S., AMRUTHAM, FRIENDS AVENUE, KANJIKODE WEST, PALAKKAD- 678 623. 20 PRATHYASH P.WILSON, S/O. P.S. WILSON, PALLISSERY HOUSE, ULLAS NAGAR, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD-678 623. 21 ABHINAND M., S/O. MANOJ KUMAR V., ANCHATHANIKKAL, KANNADI, PALAKKAD. 22 VARUN KUMAR R., S/O. RAGHURAMAN K., A 59, IL TOWNSHIP, KANJIKODE WEST, PALAKKAD-678 623. 23 SILGADI SANCHI, D/O. JESSY DANIEL, KRUAPAYAL HOUSE, MARUTHU ROAD, PALAKKAD -678 007. 24 SREERAJ D. PRASAD, S/O. DEVI PRASAD, SREEDHAREEYAM HOUSE, MANAPPULLIKKAVU, PALAKKAD. 25 KEERTHI MENON, D/O. SOBHA MENON, SARASWATHI NIVAS, ALATHUR POST, PIN-678 542.** **WP(C).No. 11927 of 2018** **26 ATHIRA MEENAKSHI, D/O. MANIAN P.M., D5, PUNNASSERY HOUSE, KAILAS NAGAR, PUTHUSSERY, PALAKKAD- 678 623.** **27 BHUVANESH A.S., S/O. AJITH B., BHUVASREE, KALLEPPULLY POST, PIN-678 007.** **BY ADVS.SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI.MANU GOVIND SMT.B.MEERA SRI.S.SABARINADH.** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **--------------** **1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SHASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 115.** **2. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, SHIKSHA KENDRA, II, COMMUNITY CENTRE, PREETH VIHAR, DELHI- 110 092, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.** **3. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, LIC DIVISIONAL OFFICE CAMPUS, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.** **4. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA, KANCHIKODE WEST, PALAKKAD-678 623, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL.** - **R1 BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSIST. S.G. OF INDIA. SRI.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR, CGC.** - **R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL S., SC.** - **R4 BY SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER, SC.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-04-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **rs. 21/04/2018.** **WP(C).No. 11927 of 2018 (M)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION CARD ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PRESS RELEASE AS IT APPEARED IN THE 2ND RESPONDENT'S WEBSITE. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.03.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PRESS RELEASE DATED 30.03.2018 APPEARED IN THE 2ND RESPONDENT'S WEBSITE.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **rs.** **21/04/2018.** **SHAJI P. CHALY, J.** ===================== W.P.(C)No.11927 of 2018 ===================== Dated, this the 20[th] day of April, 2018 ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking the following reliefs: “ i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order setting aside Exhibits P2 to P4 in so far as it directs re-examination of Class XII Economics all over India; ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 2[nd] respondent to exclude the candidates in Kerala region from re-examination of Class XII Economics paper”. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: The petitioners are outgoing students of the 4[th] respondent Kendriya Vidyalaya, who underwent class XII examination during the month of March, 2018. Their Economics examination was held on 26.03.2018. The question paper was leaked at Delhi and Hariyana. The 2[nd] respondent decided to hold re-examination all over India. At the same time, the CBSE students abroad are excluded from the said reexamination. It is also the case of the petitioners that they are not parties to the malpractice and they are not benefited by W.P.(C)No.11927 of 2018 2 the malpractice. The question papers were not leaked anywhere in South India. The proposed re-examination is, therefore, unnecessary and unwarranted as far as the candidates from Kerala region are concerned. The counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 has filed a statement. Paragraphs 4 to 7 are relevant to the context, which read thus: “4. Class-XII exams are a gateway to higher education and various professional competitive exams which have limited seats. In the present scenario, the admitting institutions of higher education are likely to have reservations against this batch of students regarding Economics results, not only in India but also in foreign institutions. Therefore, giving undue advantage to a handful of beneficiaries of the alleged leak would not be in the larger academic interest of these students, and neither does it uphold principles of education or the sanctity of the Board exam. Hence, it is also stated that the Board's decision to reconduct the examination of Class-XII Economics Paper (Code 030) on 25[th] April, 2018, for all candidates, except for CBSE students of schools located outside India, remains unchanged. 5. The Board has already referred the entire matter to the Delhi Police for the detailed investigation. The Criminal Investigation is on and the culprits are being arrested. Whenever it is conclusively established, after due enquiry in specific cases, that undue advantage of alleged leakage has been taken by certain beneficiaries, action shall be taken as per the provisions of the CBSE bye-law. 6. The Supreme Court has already considered the W.P.(C)No.11927 of 2018 3 similar issue in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 279/2018 filed by Manidhar Prathap Sing and others vs. Central Board of Secondary Education & Others and by the order dated 04-04-2018 the Bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.A.Bobde & Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.Nageshwara Rao have dismissed the writ petition. Since the Supreme Court has declined to interfere in the matter it is only just and proper that this Hon'ble Court may refrain from granting any order in the matter. 7. Apart from a bald allegation that the question papers are leaked universally, the petitioners have no case that the schools located abroad are the beneficiaries of the question paper leak. As submitted earlier, the Board which is the expert in such matters has after keeping in mind the larger paramount interest of students taken the considered decision to go ahead and reconduct the examination for Class-XII in Economics Paper (Code-030) on 28-04-2018.” (Date is a mistake, actual date is 25.04.2018 as pointed out by the counsel for CBSE) 2. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 that the subject matter was before the Apex Court, and the Apex Court has dismissed the petition as per an order dated 04.04.2018, holding that _“we see no reason to entertain this petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to the above, pending interlocutory applications, if any stand disposed of.”_ Thereafter, the examination was re-scheduled to 25.04.2018 W.P.(C)No.11927 of 2018 4 on all India basis. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Central Government Counsel, the Standing Counsel appearing for the CBSE and the counsel appearing for the Kendriya Vidyalaya, and perused the pleadings and documents on record. 4. The formidable contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is a class distinction made, which is arbitrary. The same examination written by the students abroad are not imposed with the consequences of writing the examination again on account of the leakage of the question paper whereas the students in India are made to write the said examination. In my considered opinion, it was after appreciating the pros and cons, the Board has decided to conduct the re-examination in India, which thus also means, the Board was satisfied that, any adverse impact or consequences has occurred abroad due to the leakage of question papers. Therefore, this Court exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not expected to sit over over such a satisfaction arrived at by the Board. I am also of the considered view that, the classification made is in any way arbitrary, illegal or perverse, W.P.(C)No.11927 of 2018 5 justifying interference by this Court under the writ jurisdiction. Moreover, a few students sitting in one end of the country cannot be allowed to upset the schedule of examination and preparation done by the larger student community in the whole of the country. Be it noted, any interference at this stage will also materially and mentally affect the preparedness made by the students to re-write the examination. So much so, the decision taken by the experts in the field of education law only be presumed, to be in accordance with law, and there is no established piece of evidence before me to think and act otherwise. In my considered opinion, the Supreme Court has disposed of the writ petition without considering the merits if any of the matter bearing in mind all these aspects. Taking into account the conspectus, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to get any relief as is sought for in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- ## **SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE** sd