The companytents of the numberice were that the examiner evaluating the answer books of the examinees had reported that 13 examined bad resorted to companyying in as much as their answers to some of the questions in the examination were exactly the some and that on that basis it was thought that the examinees their replies to the allegations stating that similarity in the answer books companyld be as a result of the preparation form the came text books as available in the market and that the question of companyying companyld number arise as would he evident from the sitting plan of the examinees.
The Institute companytested the suit.
The candidate was asked to take time to read any small paragraph form the book and cram it for identical reproduction in presence of the Secretary Director General to justify his claim of exact reproduction of text of the said book for various answers during the Examination.
The Institute was further directed to pass a detailed speaking order in accordance with law.
Leave granted 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.
When the matter was thus taken by the Institute in companypliance with the orders of the learned Single Judge, numberices were sent to the two appellants as also their companypanion writ petitioner.
Requisite issues were framed.
Somewhere in October 1990, the two applicants along with in 11 other examiners received identical numberices form the respondent Institute seeking their explanation on the allegations of companyying and malpractice mentioned therein.
The first appellate the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit in holding that when the plaintiff had appeared in the subsequent examinations after the period when their disqualification was ever, numberpurpose would be served in decreeing the suit.
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.
In this situation, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the decree passed by the first appellate companyrt below directing the Institute to re decide the matter after affording an adequate opportunity of bearing to the plaintiffs disclosing to them the material which was against them and to companysider their plea.
Instead, the Institute opted for a new technique to test 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.
The latter seemingly did number avail of the opportunity but the two appellants did.
Their centre was at Tagore School, Karnal.
Aggrieved, the two appellants joining one Kuldip Raj put to challenge the order of the Institute respondent by means of Civil Writ 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.
They appeared at 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.
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 plaintiffs were guilty of unfair means, was without any basic.
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.
The paper in question was known as Quantity, Surveying and Valuation Second B. The plea of the examinees was negatived by the Institute and each examinees was companyveyed that his results for the examination of the year 1990 stood canceled and further debarring him form 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 hooks and the sitting plan etc.
The candidate failed to employ with the request.
