Sunil R. Dawalkar Others v. The Maharashtra Secondary Higher Secondary Board

Cases referred :

AIR 1954 SC 217 [ 22 ]

AIR 1970 SC 1269 [ 24 ]

(1992) 2 SCC 206 [ 25 ]

SHAH, C.J. : - The Petitioners are parents and guardians of students who have appeared in the S.S.C. Examinations held on and from 16th March 1996 by the Mumbai Divisional Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education under the supervision of the Maharashtra State Secondary and Higher Secondary Board (hereinafter referred to as "the SSC Board"). The petition is filed on behalf of the student community at large and in broader public interest.

2. The matter in issue is leakage of question papers of S.S.C. Examination, which goes to the very root of the examination process. It is contended that it is of utmost social concern and the legitimacy and the sanctity of the examination process itself is in danger. In the process of S.S.C. Examination, the careers of numerous students are at stake. Instead of having a fair and just examination process, the present day process has rendered the examination a mockery because of malpractices prevailing in the examination system. It is submitted that there was large scale leakage of main question papers in the SSC Examinations held in the month of March 1996. It is, therefore, prayed that :

(a) the SSC examination held on and from 16th March 1996 stands vitiated on account of leakage of question papers and that it is a nullity;

(b) the order dated 29th March 1996 of the SSC Board revoking its earlier decision to hold a re-examination in respect of the papers in which there was leakage at the SSC examinations held in March 1996 be quashed and set aside;

(c) the SSC Board be directed to hold a re-examination in all the papers or subjects in which the question papers have leaked in respect of all the students who have appeared in the SSC examinations (new syllabus) held on and from 16th March 1996 all over the State of Maharashtra ;

(d) in the alternative, the SSC Board be restrained from declaring any merit list in respect of the said examination and the SSC Board and the State Government be directed to hold a Joint Entrance Test in respect of all the students who pass the SSC examination (new syllabus) held on and from 16th March 1996 and who desire to pursue further studies in colleges and other institutions and the merit ranking of the students in such joint entrance test be made the sole criteria for admission to colleges, diploma courses, tutorials and like purposes;

(e) a high level judicial enquiry be held to conduct a probe into the leakage of question papers at the SSC examination in March 1996 to determine the causes thereof, for fixing the responsibility of persons who were involved in the wrong doing and for suggesting steps to be taken against such persons and for preventing recurrence of such incidents.

3. For the State of Maharashtra, SSC examination is held by the SSC Board under its various Divisional Boards; that in all 12,14,785 students appeared for the said examinations; for the Mumbai Divisional Board 2,40,272 students appeared out of whom 46,862 students appeared for the old course examination and 1,93,410 students appeared for the new course examination within the Mumbai Division. A news item was published in the Indian Express on 24th March , 1996 reporting leakage of Science-II question paper for which examination was held on 23rd March, 1996. In the news item it was stated that the newspaper was able to obtain the question paper before seven hours of the commencement of the examination. It is also pointed out that the list of questions procured by the newspaper from an unidentified source not only matched the original questions, word to word, but were also in the exact serial order. It is also stated that a First Information Report was lodged by one of the reporters of the newspaper in pursuance of which a case has been registered under Section 409 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Malpractices in Universities and Educational Boards Act, 1965.

4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that on coming to know about the said leakage, Respondents Nos.1 and 2 failed to take any decision in the matter. Thereafter the examinations in the papers of Algebra and Geometry were held on 25th and 26th March 1996 respectively. On 26th March 1996 it was found that the question papers in Algebra and Geometry had also been leaked out. On the basis of the said leakage, the Chairman of the Mumbai Divisional Board was suspended. Respondent No.1 Board also ordered re-examination for Science-II, Algebra and Geometry papers to be held respectively on 9th, 10th and 11th April 1996 only in respect of the Mumbai Division on account of leakage of question papers of the said subjects.

5. It is further submitted that on or about 29th March, 1996, the Respondents took an arbitrary and unjust decision of revoking the earlier decision to hold re-examination. That decision is challenged by filing this petition.

6. It has further been contended on behalf of the Petitioners that : -

( i ) the Respondents are duty bound to conduct the examinations in a fair manner and to maintain purity of the examination process; that large scale leakage of question papers constituted an absolute failure on the part of the Respondents, particularly the SSC Board and the State Government in the discharge of their statutory duty which they owe to the society; that there has been clear, wilful and patent neglect on the part of the Respondents to fulfil their public duties;

(ii) the entire conduct of the Respondents in cancelling the decision to hold re-examination is arbitrary and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and, in any case, the said decision is not based on any ground which is germane or relevant to the issue;

(iii) if students are allowed to take advantage of the leakage of question papers out of the money of their parents, then holding of examinations is of no use and it is a mere mockery;

(iv) in present days, the SSC examination has its own importance inasmuch as the future of students depends on their performance at the said examination. If the said examination is not held properly and the question papers are leaked, which gives undue advantage to those who are interested in malpractices in the examination, then the results of the said examination should be ignored as it is not the proper criteria for deciding the caliber of the students;

(v) after the SSC examination, students are required to choose the stream of education, such as, Science, Commerce or other allied subjects to make their future and the merits are judged on the basis of the examination. If this examination itself is polluted, then obviously it would affect adversely the students career and thereby the society at large.

7. It is, therefore, submitted that the Respondents be directed to abide by its earlier decision of holding re-examination of the leaked question papers or in the alternative to hold, in any case, an entrance test for those students who seek admission to junior colleges and other educational institutions in the Science, Commerce and allied streams.

8. As against this, in the affidavit-in-reply dated 17th April 1996 filed by S.A.H. Abidi, Secretary to the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Mumbai Divisional Board, it has been pointed out that :

( i ) granting of any relief as prayed for by the Petitioners will be more prejudicial to public interest;

(ii) the Board is taking proper steps so that there my not be leakage of question papers;

(iii) the Board had a very unique experience in the last SSC examination, in that, there was a leakage of number of question papers despite strict action taken by it to maintain secrecy of the question papers; the Board was surprised by the appearance of a report in the Bombay Times dated 13th March 1996 in which it was reported that there would be leakage of question papers of the forthcoming examinations which were to start on 16th March 1996; that on reading the said report, the Deponent had written letters to several Police Officers, including the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, drawing their attention to the said news report and requesting them to salvage the situation; that the first case of leakage was reported to the Deponent on 24th March 1996 and the said leakage was reported by the Indian Express on the next day; that on 25th and 26th March 1996 meetings of the Examination Committee were held; and that on 25th 1996 also there was a report of leakage of another question paper, namely, Mathematics (Algebra); that question papers in Science-II and Mathematics (Algebra) had in fact been leaked before the commencement of the said examinations; that thereupon the Examination Committee decided to hold re-examination in the said two subjects because by that time there was news about leakage of Mathematics (Geometry) paper also; that the reports appearing in the press were couched in such language that they had created a scare not only in the minds of the general public but also in the minds of the Mumbai Boards Examination Committee; that in these circumstances the Examination Committee decided at its meeting held on 25th and 26th March 1996 to hold re-examination in the area of the Mumbai Divisional Board in the subjects of Science Paper II, Mathematics (Algebra) and Mathematics (Geometry); that First Information Report was filed by his letter dated 27th March 1996 with the Mumbai Police Commissioner and the Crime Branch of the Mumbai Police had started investigation and have made some arrests. Thereafter a report was received that the leakage had not spread very wide and the damage caused thereby was confined to a limited area and a small number of students; that on receipt of the said report of the Crime Branch, the Examination Committee reconsidered its earlier decision dated 26th March 1996 to hold re-examination and that ends of justice would be met by taking appropriate action against the students who can be identified on the basis of the police investigation.

9. It is also pointed out in the said affidavit-in-reply that if re-examinations are to be held, they cannot be held, in the circumstances of the case, till the middle of June 1996 because many of the students as well as teachers have dispersed to different parts of the country for summer vacation. It is further pointed out that for conducting the re-examination and for assessment of the answer books thereafter, thousands of teachers will be required as paper setters, translatos, examiners, deputy conductors and invigilators. Further difficulties are also pointed out for holding re-examination.

10. On behalf of the State Government, Respondent No.3, Mr. Mohan Dattatray Bhandarkar, Under Secretary to Government, School Education Department, has filed an affidavit-in-reply dated 22nd April 1996 wherein also it is stated that morally and ethically speaking, the fact that the question papers were leaked out is most unfortunate and, in fact, goes to the root of the value system of the society; however, the leakage of these question papers will have to be viewed in the light of the genuine difficulties and apprehensions in relation to conduct of examinations which has to be taken at the State level. It is also pointed out that the SSC Board, which is a body corporate, had taken a decision to conduct re-examination in view of the information received by them in respect of leakage of certain papers and that the State has not influenced the said decision of the Board in any way whatsoever. The SSC Board called its meeting on 29th March 1996 and having perused the report of the Crime Branch and having discussed the pros and cons of the leakage of question papers came to the decision that holding of re-examination would cause considerable injury to large number of students who had appeared for the examination. Even for this purpose the State has not issued any direction; however it felt that considerable hardship would be caused to a major section of the students who had appeared for the SSC examination. For the purpose, reliance is placed on the letter dated 29th March 1996 from the State Government to the Chairman of the SSC Board.

11. In a further affidavit filed by the Officer on Special Duty it has been pointed out that on 26th March 1996 discussions were held with the Chief Minister, Minister of School Education, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, the Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime Branch) and the Chairman of the Pune Board. It was felt by the State that if re-examinations were held, hardship would be caused to 98% of the students without any rhyme or reason for the sake of 2% of the students who had appeared for the SSC examination; that large section of the society had also registered its intention to hold Dharna and change the whole complex of the problem; that, therefore, in the said meeting it was decided that the matter of leakage of question papers should be thoroughly investigated by the police and further the Chairman of the Board should stand by the decision taken by the Board. The minutes of the said meeting are produced along with the said affidavit.

12. In paragraph 5 of the minutes of the meeting held on 26th March 1996 it has been specifically mentioned that the Divisional Chairman has been suspended and the Chief Minister has also supported the Boards decision to conduct re-examination. It is also mentioned that there is large scale opposition to the decision to conduct re-examination. In this background if it is decided to change the decision it is likely to be challenged before the Election Commissioner or the Court. Similarly in the meeting which was held on 29th March, 1996 it has been specifically stated that the Chief Minister has opined that after leakage of question papers the decision to hold re-examination is proper. However, in view of the apprehension that there will be general protest by disgruntled students and possible violence, it was decided that the Chairman of the Board may take appropriate decision about re-examination by obtaining report from the police department.

Thereafter the Board also held a subsequent meeting and decided to cancel its earlier decision to hold re-examination.

13. From the affidavits of the State Government and the SSC Board it is apparent that

(a) there was large scale leakage of some of the question papers within the Mumbai Division and

(b) initially the Board had decided to hold re-examination and the State Government had also endorsed the said decision. In the meeting which was held on 29th March 1996 it was re-affirmed by the Chief Minister that the decision taken by the Board to conduct re-examination was proper. However it was apprehended that there would be general protest and possible violence from disgruntled students.

14. In our view, if this is the basis for reversing the earlier decision taken by the Board to hold re-examination of the papers, in which there was wide spread leakage, to say the least, it is totally unjustified. The State Government or the Board has to act in conformity with the law and enforce the Regulations even if there is apprehension of general protest and possible violence. It is the elementary duty of the State in a civilised society to maintain law and order. The State cannot also wash off its hands by saying that the decision not to conduct re-examination is taken by the SSC Board and it has no say in the matter. The said decision was in fact influenced by what has transpired in the meeting with the Chief Minister and others, as is apparent from the affidavits-in-reply.

15. The powers and duties of the SSC Board and Divisional Boards are mentioned in Sections 18 and 19 of the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Section 18 of the said Act, inter alia, provides as under : -

"18. Subject to the provisions of this Act, the powers and duties of the State Board shall be as follows, namely :-

(a) to advise the State Government on matters of policy relating to secondary or higher secondary education in general, and on the following matters in particular :-

( i ) ensuring a uniform pattern of secondary or higher secondary education;

(ii) maintenance of uniform standard of education in secondary schools and junior colleges;

(iii) co-ordination between national policies and State policies in secondary or higher secondary education;

(iv) co-ordination between secondary or higher secondary education, university education and primary education;

(b) to (k) ... ... "

(l) to call for special reports and information from the Director of Education Department, and any information from any secondary school or junior college recognised by a Divisional Board to ensure maintenance of academic standards in secondary and higher secondary education;

(m) to (q) ........

(r) to conduct statistical and other research for the purpose of evaluation and reform of the curricula, instruction and examination system;"

Section 19 of the said Act reads as under : -

"19. Subject to the provisions of this Act, the powers and duties of a Division Board shall be as follows, namely:-

(a) to (e) .... .....

(f) to conduct in the area of its jurisdiction the final examination on behalf of the State Board;

(g) to appoint paper setters, translators, examiners, moderators, supervisors and other necessary personnel for conducting the final examination in the area of its jurisdiction, for evaluation of candidates performance and for compiling and release of results in accordance with such instructions as the State Board may from time to time issue;

(h) to (1) ..........

(m) to generally evaluate the performance of students in all examinations in secondary schools and junior colleges including the final examination and make necessary recommendations to the State Board in that behalf;........."

Regulation 15 of the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards Regulations, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as "the said regulations") speaks of constitution of Examination Committee and its duties. clause (2) of regulation 15 reads as under : -

"(2 ) Subject to the provisions of the Act and the Regulations, the Examination Committee shall have the following duties and functions, namely :

( i ) to order the conduct of the final examinations in conformity with the Regulations.

(ii) to (xv)......

(xvi) to enquire into the complaints regarding the alleged leakage of question papers, mass copying or such other reasons at a centre and to decide whether the examination to be held or already held in a subject or paper at a centre should be cancelled and a re-examination should be held in one or more subjects or paper in a centre of the examination. The decision of the Examination Committee shall be reported to the Divisional Board at its next meeting."

(Emphasis supplied)

16. Regulation 35 of the said Regulations reads as under : -

"35. EXAMINATIONS

(1) The Divisional Boards shall conduct in the respective areas of their jurisdiction, the Secondary School Certificate examination, on behalf of the State Board, twice a year, in March or April and October or November; provided that it shall be competent for a Divisional Board to conduct a special examination or re-examination in one or more subjects or papers in a centre of the examination at any time as the Examination Committee may decide according to the exigencies of the situation that may arise due to the leakage of question paper, mass copying or such other reasons at any time in an emergency.

(Emphasis supplied)

(2) The Divisional Boards shall conduct such other examination as the State Board may, by Regulation, prescribe from time to time."

17. From the aforesaid provisions in the Act and the Regulations, it is clear that when occasion arises the Divisional Board is duty bound to hold re-examination in case of large scale leakage of question papers. The aforesaid Sections and Regulations, inter alia, provide that it is the duty of the State Board to advise the State Government with regard to examination system; it is the duty of the Divisional Board to conduct final examination and to generally evaluate the performance of the students in all examinations in Secondary School; the Examination Committee has to inquire into the complaints regarding alleged leakage of question papers and in such case to hold re-examination in one or more papers; and the Divisional Board is also required to conduct a special examination in one or more such papers of examination at any time as the Examination Committee may decide according to the exigencies of the situation that may arise due to the leakage of question papers. In the instant case the said statutory function is abdicated by the Board on the so-called misapprehension that there would be wide spread resistance or violence. In our view, such abdication of statutory duty is totally unjustified, unreasonable and in violation of its statutory function.

18. As stated above, from the affidavit-in-reply filed by the SSC Board it is apparent that on 13th March 1996 in the Bombay Times it was reported that there would be leakage of the SSC Examination question papers; the Board had received the information on 24th March 1996 that there was, in fact, leakage of question papers; that the reports were wide spread; and that on the basis of the said reports the Mumbai Divisional Board had issued time table for re-examination in the leaked papers and examinations were scheduled to be held on 9th, 10th and 11th April 1996. This decision of the Board was approved by the State Government.

19. However, in the affidavit-in-reply dated 24th April 1996 filed by Shri R.K.Hushare (Officer on Special Duty), Deputy Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, it is stated that in the discussion held between the Chief Minister, the Minister of School Education, the Chief Secretary to Government of Maharashtra, the Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime Branch) and the Chairman of the Pune Board on 26th March 1996, reports of the police were carefully perused and the decision not to hold re-examination was taken by the Board. It is also pointed out that it was felt by the State that considerable hardship would be caused to major sections of the students who had appeared for the SSC examinations. It is further pointed out that because of the wide spread leakage it was decided to suspend the Divisional Chairman of the Board; the Boards decision to hold re-examination was found fully justified by the Chief Minister and others who were present in the said meeting and it was decided that the State should stand by the decision taken by the Board; that the said decision to support the decision of the Board was taken by the State after having considered the situation as a whole.

20. It is unfortunate that the State Government has taken a somersault subsequently and decided not to hold re-examination. Copies of various newspaper reports are annexed to the Petition which indicate that there was large scale leakage of question papers. Copy of a letter from Shri Pramod Navalkar, Minister of School Education, published in the Times of India dated 10th April 1996 is annexed as Exhibit "E" to the Petition wherein the Minister has denied that the decision not to hold re-examination was taken by him alone arbitrarily without consulting anybody, including the Chief Minister.

21. From the above facts it is apparent that, undoubtedly, there was large scale leakage of question papers in the abovementioned subjects. It is admitted at the hearing of this Petition that there was leakage of question papers in other subjects also. On these admitted facts we have to decide whether the decision to cancel the re-examination was justified or illegal. From the statutory provisions as discussed above, it is clear that in case of leakage of question papers it is the duty and function of the Board to hold re-examination in one or more subjects or papers in a centre. Apart from the aforesaid statutory duty, the Board is required to hold the examination in a fair and just manner because it is elementary to state that future careers of a large number of students depend upon the result of the SSC Examination. They get admissions for further studies on the basis of the marks obtained at the said examination. They are required to select different branches of studies on the basis of the said marks. The said marks are taken into consideration all throughout their career. If such an important examination is polluted by leakage of question papers, of which few students get undue advantage, then the said examination loses its worth. As stated above, after taking the decision to hold re-examination, for extraneous reasons it was decided to cancel the said decision and for that the Board took shelter of some police report to the effect that there may not be wide spread leakage of question papers.That report is of Deputy Commissioner of Police Shri Sanjay Pande. As against this, it is pointed out that a report was also in the newspaper in the name of D.C.P. Sanjay Pande, copy of which is annexed at Exhibit "G" to the Petition, wherein it is stated as under :

" DCP Sanjay Pande said: I am not sure if we can stop the exams. But we will certainly intimate the Board of the farce these exams have become."

The Investigating Officer was called by us and he informed us that he had examined only 80 persons and found that there was leakage but from this, in our view, it is not possible to accept that the leakage was not wide spread. Even the newspaper report of 13th March 1996 indicated that there was possibility of leakage of question papers; on 24th March 1996 question papers were leaked and it was also reported in the newspapers. Same thing happened in respect of two subsequent question papers. Therefore, in our view, the decision to cancel the re-examination was wholly unjustified and was for extraneous reasons, merely by stating that there was likelihood of resistance and violence. The State authorities are expected to maintain law and order. If such plea is accepted, then there would not be an orderly society governed by rule of law.

22. However, Mr. Rajadhyaksha, learned Counsel for the SSC Board, cited the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Vice-Chancellor v. S.K. Ghosh , AIR 1954 Supreme Court, 217. In that case the first MBBS Examination of the University of Orissa included Anatomy as one of its subjects wherein there had been a leakage of question and the Syndicate came to the conclusion that there was such leakage and the examination be cancelled and another examination in the subject be held. That decision was challenged before the High Court and the High Court concluded that even if the evidence is sufficient to indicate a possibility of some leakage, there was no justification for the Syndicate to pass such a drastic resolution in the absence of proof of the quantum and the amplitude of leakage. In that context the Supreme Court observed in paragraph 18 of its judgment as under :

"....... the learned Judges of the High Court appeared to consider that it is not enough to have facts established from which a leakage can legitimately be inferred by reasonable minds, but that there must in addition be proof of its quantum and amplitude though they do not indicate what the yardstick of measurement should be. That is a proposition to which we are not able to assent."

The Supreme Court then observed that it is not the function of Courts of law to substitute their wisdom and discretion for that of the persons to whose judgment the matter in question is entrusted by the law. The Supreme Court further observed that the University authorities acted honestly as reasonable and responsible men confronted with an urgent situation are entitled to act.

23. In the present case the situation is quite the reverse. The SSC Board and the State authorities once decided to conduct re-examination. Subsequently it revoked the said decision only because of some extraneous considerations which are not at all germane. It is true that it is for the SSC Board or the State Government which exercises supervisory control, to curb maloractices. But if there is failure to discharge such function and the statutory duty as provided under the Act and the Regulation, Court is required to interfere. It appears that to change the decision of re-examination, reliance is placed on some so-called police report, which is not produced on record. That report, at the most, indicates (as reflected in the minutes) that there may be some violence or resistance by some section of the students and that leakage might not have reached large section of the students. It is not possible to accept the aforesaid reasons firstly because resistance would be no ground for a statutory body not to discharge its functions. Secondly, the so-called police report, as admitted by the Investigating Officer, is based on statements of only 80 students recorded by him, from which it cannot be said that the leakage was not on a large scale. As stated in the affidavits-in-reply, it was an accepted fact by all concerned that there was large scale leakage of question papers.

24. As against this, it has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that in the case of The Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha, AIR 1970 SC 1269, it was held by the Supreme Court that even in such a situation where the examination was vitiated by adoption of unfair means on a mass scale, it would be wrong to insist that the Board must hold a detailed inquiry into the matter and examine each individual case to satisfy itself which of the candidates had not adopted unfair means. It was further observed by the Supreme Court that where the examination as a whole was vitiated, say by leakage of papers or by destruction of some of the answer books or by discovery of unfair means practised on a vast scale, to say that an inquiry should be held giving a chance to every one appearing at that examination to have his say would be erroneous. The Court has observed that if at a centre the whole body of students receive assistance and manage to secure success in the neighbourhood of 100% when others at other centres are successful only at an average of 50%, it is obvious that the university or the Board must do something in the matter.

25. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners further relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Public Service Commission v. B.M. Vijaya Shankar , (1992) 2 SCC 206, wherein the Court has observed as under :-

" 5 . Competitive examinations are required to be conducted by the Commission for public service in strict secrecy to get the best brain. Public interest requires no compromise on it. Any violation of it should be visited strictly."

26. The aforesaid observations are equally applicable in the case of SSC examination which is vital for all meritorious students. Their entire career depends upon the marks which they obtain during this examination. These marks are also taken into consideration all throughout their career. Such examinations are required to be kept unpolluted and in the interest of the student community as a whole it requires no compromise with unfair means adopted by some on account of the leakage of question papers. Leakage of question papers affects the examination system as a whole and that is accepted by the Regulations quoted above. No compromise is also required to be made on the ground that there would be resistance, including some violence, if re-examinations are held. If this reason is accepted, then unsocial elements, and not the Board, would take over the entire control of the examination system.

27. However, considering the present situation, particularly the fact that the State Government as well as the SSC Board has already decided to cancel its earlier decision to hold re-examinations, we do not think that it would be just and proper to direct the Board and the State Government to hold re-examination. Taking an overall view of the matter, we are of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if we direct the Respondents to hold an entrance test for the students before giving them admission to junior colleges and other educational institutions in the Science and Commerce stream. We may notice that this was also objected to by the State Government on the ground that it would not be practicable and would create some problems. In our view, it is not only the elementary duty of the State to maintain law and order but also to see that examinations are held as per the Act and the Regulations framed by it. The stream of education and examination system is required to be maintained unpolluted. For maintaining this, if some sacrifice is required, there is no alternative to it.

28. When the leakage of question papers is accepted, the results of the examination are bound to be affected. Some students who are below average may get through the examination; some students who are average may get more marks; those some students who are average may easily secure such more marks and surpass other meritorious students who could not get question papers in advance. This would not reflect the correct merit of the students. However, as re-examinations are cancelled, it would not be proper to direct re-examination after lapse of so much time. At the same time, not taking any action would mean that those who indulge in malpractices are permitted to reap undue advantage.

29. It is true that conducting entrance test is likely to cause some hardship, but at present there is no alternative because after taking a decision to hold re-examination, as stated above, for reasons not germane to the issue, the said decision has been cancelled by the Board and the Government. We also realise that this order would adversely affect some genuine students not benefited by the leakage of question papers. But it is difficult to envisage any other solution to the problem.

30. The proposed entrance test is confined to Mumbai Division only because as per the reports available, the main leakage of the question papers took place in Mumbai City though it might have been leaked out to some other areas by telecommunication or otherwise.

In the result, we direct that :

(1) The State of Maharashtra shall hold a common entrance test in respect of the following question papers, namely, Science I, Science II (of 60 marks in all) and Mathematics I (Algebra) and Mathematics II (Geometry) (of 75 marks in all) which papers have been leaked within the area of Mumbai Divisional Board during the SSC Examination held in March 1996 for the new course. (We have directed to hold the examinations of 60 and 75 marks respectively with a view to lessen the burden on the students by exactly halving the total marks given to the said subjects). The State Government would hold the said common entrance test through the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and the State Government shall render all necessary assistance to the Board for the said purpose. The Respondents are also directed to take advance steps for preparation of question papers for the said entrance test. For this entrance test, the syllabus and the format would be the same for which the SSC Examinations were held in March, 1996.

(2) The common entrance test will be confined to those students who have secured 60% ( Ist Class) or more marks and who want to get admission to Junior Colleges and other educational institutions for Science or Commerce related studies.

(3) All students who have appeared for and passed the SSC Examination held in March 1996 and have secured 60% marks and above and who wish to apply for admission for further studies in any Junior College or other educational institutions for Science or Commerce related studies within the area of jurisdication of the Mumbai Divisional Board shall be required to appear for the common entrance test. Only students who have passed the SSC Examination from the Mumbai Divisional Board will be required to pass the common entrance test for getting admission to Junior College or other educational institutions within the Mumbai Divisional Board during the academic year 1996-97.

(4) The merit list for admission to Junior Colleges and other educational institutions within the area of the Mumbai Divisional Board for the Science and Commerce related studies shall be prepared on the basis of the marks obtained by the students in the common entrance test and the marks in the remaining subjects of the SSC Examinations.

(5) The admissions and merit lists for admission to Junior Colleges and other educational institutions for Science and Commerce related studies shall be announced and completed after consideration of the results of the common entrance test.

(6) The entrance test shall be held within 15 days from the declarations of the SSC Examination results.

31. The above directions would not mean that the State Government or the Board is absolved from holding proper inquiry or investigation into the aspect of leakage of the question papers. It would be open to them to take further decisions and issue further directions for taking action against the culprits and preventive measures in future.

32. Liberty to apply in case of any difficulty.

33. For further directions, adjourned to 24th June 1996.

Ordered accordingly.