Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


C/M. Shri Mohan Singh Inter College, Mathura And Another v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 7339 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 19237 (15 November 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court no. 23

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7339 of 2006

Committee of Management Sri Mohan Singh Inter College Mathura and another..............................................................................................Petitioner


State of U.P. and others...............................................................Respondents.

Hon. S.N.Srivastava, J.

By means of order dated 14.11.2006, this Court enjoined the secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate to enlighten the Court on the following points.

(1) Percentage of students who passed in High School and Intermediate examinations for the year immediately before coming into force the self centre examination scheme.

(2) Percentage of students who passed High School and Intermediate Examination after coming into force the self centre examination scheme in the last three years,

(3) List of unaided colleges and schools which have not been found fit for holding of examinations of Board of High School and Intermediate under the self-centre examination scheme.

Learned Advocate General in compliance of the order aforesaid, made a statement on instructions received from the Board of High School and Intermediate that in 2003 the percentage of students who passed High School was 70% while the percentage of passed student has leaped to 89% under the self centre examination scheme. The other details which were required by means of the above order are still awaited. In this view of the matter, the Secretary of the Board of High School and Intermediate is directed to file affidavit detailing therein the complete information in compliance of the order of the Court dated 14.11.2006.

Picking up the threads of arguments advanced yesterday, learned Advocate General canvassed that policy decision of introducing self centre examination was taken keeping in view the safety and security of the students, and also taking into account the difficulties experienced and expenses involved in transportation and also regard being had to the impecunious condition of the majority of the people of the State of U.P. who find it difficult to bear the transportation expenses. Ostensibly in veiled support of the self centre scheme, the learned Advocate General further canvassed that various measures have been embarked upon by the State to eliminate the evils of mass copying  and in this connection he referred to Government order dated 29.9.2006  (Annexure 6 to the Supplementary affidavit). He further drew attention of the Court to the fact that in the examination 2005-2006 the State Government, by means of Govt order dated 1.1.2006 (Annexure 2 to the Supplementary affidavit), laid down guidelines and directions which were aimed at keeping the Board Examinations free from all irregularities and to minimize the evils of mass copying. The learned Advocate General also canvassed that while issuing Government Order dated 29th Sept 2006, the entire matter was reviewed for 2007 and a policy decision was taken.

In the light of the above submissions, the Court posed various questions the quintessence of which are as under:

(1) Whether there is any law relating to selection and appointment of teachers working in unaided colleges/schools and if so whether State has any control over them in the matter of disciplinary action against them like teachers in aided school/colleges.

(2) From the facts revealed from the affidavit filed by the State, it is clear that in the year 2004, only 53 colleges were de-recognized as examination centre under the self-centre examination inasmuch as they were found involved in mass copying. In2005, number of colleges increased from 53to 124 and in theyear2006 the number increased to 192. The above figures are borne out from the list submitted by Sri Basudev Yadav, Secretary of High School and Intermediate daetd19th Sept 2006.

The State has filed another affidavit listing therein 181 colleges where re examination was ordered in the year 2006 on receiving complaint of mass copying and again 227 colleges were de-recognized as centre for examination of Board of High School and Intermediate. A list was also placed before the Court by the learned Advocate General which goes to show that 566 colleges were further de-recognized as Centre for examination apart from 10 colleges which were not found fit for examination centre by the State. Apart from above, 31colleges were further de-listed against which adverse report was given by the Executive Authorities that these colleges were involved in using unfair means. Further, three colleges were found where the question papers were looted. Attention of the learned Advocate General was also drawn to the fact that number of reports have been received from the Educational authorities which are part of the record that Managers and teachers of certain unaided colleges are reportedly involved in mass copying actuated by oblique motive. It was further pointed out that a report has been received by the Educational as well as other authorities that there is no proper safety and security of the invigilator coming from outside and in several cases police have reports that these invigilators have to yield to local pressure exerted by local people who are actively involved in pushing mass copying and unfair means.  

The learned Advocate General however, prayed for adjournment of the case for a week in order to enable him to acquaint the State Government of the anxieties and concerns of the Court so that appropriate decision may be taken in the matter after reviewing the situation in entirety.

The interim order already passed shall continue to hold good till next date fixed in the case.





Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.