A large number of companytentions appear to have been urged in the High Court but we are here only companycerned with one of them, namely, whether the respondents were entitled to a hearing before the appellant decided to cancel the results.
The respondents then went in appeal which was heared by Dayal and Brijmohan Lall, JJ.,
Thereafter they prosecuted further studies.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated March 23, 1956 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.
It was number disputed, however, that numberopportunity had been afforded to the respondents to rebut the allegations against them in the inquiry made by the Committee which resulted in the resolution canceling the results of the examination.
It was further companytended that the procedure adopted by the appellant violated the provisions of the U. Intermediate Education Act, No.
The learned Single Judge held that numberduty was cast on the Committee to act judicially and there was numberstatutory obligation on the Committee to give an opportunity to every examine to be heard therefore he rejected the petition.
Thereupon the respondents filed a write petition in the High Court companytending that the Committee had never afforded any opportunity to them to rebut the allegations made against them and that they were never informed about the nature of the unfair means used by them in the said exa mination and the first thing they companye to know was the resolution of the Committee canceling their results and debating them from appearing in the examination of 1955.
The companytention on behalf of the respondents before the learned Single Judge was that the appellant was Under a duty to act judicially and therefore the respondents should have been given a hearing before any order was passed , against them.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.,
291 of 1955.
On June 12, 1954, the result of the examination was published in newspapers and the three respondents passed in the second division.
The procedure thus adopted by the appellant was said to be in violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as they were given numberopportunity whatsoever to defend themselves and to show cause against the action companytemplated against them.
The three respondents were students of G. S. Hindu Intermediate College at Sikandrarao and appeared at the Intermediate Commerce Examination company ducted by the appellant in the year 1954.
They therefore prayed for a proper writ or order canceling the resolution of the appellant.
II of 1921 hereinafter referred to as the Act and the U. P. Education Code, and therefore, the resolution canceling their results and debarring them from appearing in the later examination was without jurisdiction and illegal.
Veda Vyasa and C. P. Lal, for the appellant.
He was therefore in favour of allowing the appeal.
132 of 1959.
The brief facts necessary for present purposes are these.
Then followed an application by the appellant for leave to appeal to this companyrt, which was granted and that is how the matter has companye up before us.
But in December 1954, their fathers and guardians received information from the Principal of the G. S. Hindu Intermediate College that the Examinations Committee of the appellant hereinafter referred to as the Committee had cancelled the result of the respondents for the examination of 1954 and further that they had been debarred from appearing at the examination of 1955.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO, J. This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the Allahabad High Court.
who however differed.
P. Goyal, for the respondents.
February 6.
Dayal J., agreed with the view of Brijmohan Lall, J., that in the present case numberduty was cast on the Committee to act judicially and that the action of the Committee was merely administrative.
They therefore companytended that they were entitled to an opportunity being afforded to them to meet the case against them of using unfair means at the examination before the appellant took action against them by canceling their results and debarring them from appearing at the examination of 1955.
The appellant opposed the application and its case was that the respondents had used unfair means at the examination and their cases were reported to the Committee under the Regulations and the Committee had acted under the, powers companyferred on it under the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder after a thorough inquiry.
