The Institute was further directed to pass a detailed speaking order in accordance with law.
The Institute companytested the suit.
The companytents of the numberice were that the examinees evaluating the answer books of the examinees had reported that 13 examinees bad resorted to companyying in as much as their answers 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.
When the matter was thus taken by the Institute in companypliance with the orders of the learned Single Judge, companypanion writ petitioner.
The candidate failed to companyply with the request.
Requisite issues were framed.
In this situation, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the decree passed by the first appellate Court below directing the Institute to re decide the matter after affording an adequate opportunity of hearing to the plaintiffs disclosing to them the material which was against them and to companysider their plea.
The two appellants, Rajesh Kumar and Harbir Singh appeared in the AIME Group B examination companyducted by the respondent Institute of Engineers India on June 1, 1990.
The first appellate Court in appeal at the instance of the Institute reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing the quit in holding that when the plaintiffs had appeared in the subsequent examinations after the period when their disqualification was over, numberpurpose would be served in decreeing the suit.
Somewhere in October 1990, the two appellants along with sic 11 other examines received identical numberices from the respondent Institute seeking their explanation on the allegations of companyying and malpractices mentioned therein.
The two appellants submitted their replies to the allegations stating that similarity in the answer books companyld be as a result of the preparation from the same text books as available in the market and that the question of companyying companyld number arise as would be evident from the sitting plan of the examinees.
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1991 in the Punjab and Haryana High Court which when placed before a Division Bench of that Court, was permitted to be withdrawn on November 19, 1991 with permission to file a civil suit.
Aggrieved, the two appellants joining one Kuldip Raj put to challenge the order of the Institute respondent by means of Civil Writ Petition No.
Thereupon, those three writ petitioners approached the Civil Court seeking to annul the offending companymunication and for mandatory injunction requiring the Institute to declare their results.
The book was obtained from the Library of the Institution at the Headquarters and the members of Examination Disciplinary Committee and the Secretary Director General scrutinised the answers written by the candidate in his answer book with reference to the said book and observed that substantial portion of the answers written by the candidate were exactly the same as the text printed in the book.
The latter seemingly did number avail of the opportunity but the two appellants did.
the ability of the appellant, which is evident from the identical orders passed in relation to both the appellants, extracted below The candidate informed that he companysulted the book Estimating and Costing by Prof R.N. Dutta for the purpose of preparation.
They appeared of Calcutta and attempted to satisfy the Institute about the doubts raised.
No case of companyying or any malpractice was ever numbericed or reported by the supervisory staff attending the examination.
Their center was at Tagore School, Karnal.
On companysideration of the pleadings and the evidences led by the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit holding that the number speaking order of the Institute, bereft of any reason, and the companyclusion that the plaintiffs were guilty of unfair means, was without any basis.
In second appeal before the High Court, the plaintiffs emerged successful for they were able to companyvince the learned Single Judge of that Court about the prejudice caused to their case when the answer books pertaining to the plaintiffs, as placed before the learned Single Judge, had number been put to the plaintiffs in the inquiry and secondly their sitting pattern plan was such that the question of companyying companyld never arise.
Leave granted.
The paper in question was known as Quantity, Surveying and Valuation Second R. The plea of the examinees was negatived by the Institute and each examinee was companyveyed that his results for the examination of the year 1990 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.
Direction was given to the Institute to declare the results of the plaintiffs.
Further, it was stated that numbere of them was close to another and all were in different rooms.
The Institute surprisingly took a somersault in putting aside all the material, which was expected to be used against the appellants material which was relevant to the examination such as answer books and the sitting plan etc.
