KUMARI SHARMILA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH this matter is posted in orders list, with the consent of the Learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 4, the same is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) PETITIONER is a student prosecuting here studies in X standard. She has sought for quashing the memorandum endorsement dated 3rd June 2011, bearing No. A7 (N-9)/2011 PaFaPra/26/2011-12, vide Annexure - H. Further, she has sought for a mandamus, directing the second respondent to declare/announce the result of the petitioner in respect of SSLC Examination, taken up by her vide Registration No. 20110208972, conducted in the month of April 2011, by the second respondent/Board.

(3.) FURTHER, it can be seen that the communication regarding shortage of attendance pointed out by the fifth respondent to appear for the SSLC Examination, is not supported by any authenticated credible document to establish that there is, in fact, any shortage of attendance. Mere communication that the petitioner did not possess the required attendance itself is not the criteria to deny the petitioner to take up the SSLC Examination. This aspect has been rightly dealt with by the fourth respondent and permitted the petitioner to appear for the Examination. Whereas the same has not been looked into nor considered not taken note by the second respondent in its proper perspective, while issuing the impugned endorsement. Therefore, the impugned communication is liable to be set-aside on this ground also.