The Bombay high court (HC) has refused to grant relief to a 17-year-old Dhule student, who was debarred from appearing for the higher secondary certificate (HSC) examination till July 2021 after the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education noticed that her handwriting and the ink used by her in answer scripts differed in five papers in the March 2019 board examination.
The board had sought an explanation from Swarnim Chingre after the examiner noticed considerable difference in her handwriting and ink used to answer five of the six papers — biology, English, mathematics, physics and chemistry. Chingre responded that the ink appeared different as she was forced to change the pen she was using because it ran out of ink. The difference in handwriting, Chingre said, was because she wrote in “cursive in a hurry” at times and in “print style” at times.
The board, however, refused to accept the explanation and declared her guilty of exam misconduct. Her exam was cancelled and she was debarred her from appearing for HSC exam till July 2021. Chingre then approached the HC, challenging the boards’ order to save three crucial academic years.
The bench of justices SV Gangapurwala and Anil Kilor dismissed her petition after noting that the answers were written at places in a handwriting that was completely different from the samples she had submitted with her explanation.The HC noted that the change in ink and the difference in handwriting was random and spread over the answer sheets, and belied her explanation. The HC also refused to adopt any liberal approach with regard to the punishment imposed on the student. “Malpractices in examinations have become a major challenge to examination bodies,” the bench said. “To stop this menace and to eradicate this problem and to maintain purity and fairness in examination, some deterrent punishment is needed,” it added.
{{/usCountry}}The bench of justices SV Gangapurwala and Anil Kilor dismissed her petition after noting that the answers were written at places in a handwriting that was completely different from the samples she had submitted with her explanation.The HC noted that the change in ink and the difference in handwriting was random and spread over the answer sheets, and belied her explanation. The HC also refused to adopt any liberal approach with regard to the punishment imposed on the student. “Malpractices in examinations have become a major challenge to examination bodies,” the bench said. “To stop this menace and to eradicate this problem and to maintain purity and fairness in examination, some deterrent punishment is needed,” it added.
{{/usCountry}}