PREETI SRIVASTAVA Vs. C B S E

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a student of Class X in Delhi Public School, R.K. Purarn, New Delhi, filed this petition through her guardian under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ, order or direction to the respondents, namely. Central Board of Secondary Education and the Delhi Public School, to permit her to sit in the forthcoming public examination of Class X conducted by the first respondent which was scheduled to commence in March 1994. Petitioner also sought quashing of letter dated 25 January 1994 issued by the second respondent, the school. In this letter the Principal of the school informed the petitioner that there was shortage of attendance of the petitioner, a student of Class X, and that it could not be possible to issue her board roll number since her attendances in the class for the year 1993-94 were only 20% and that the minimum attendance requirement was 75%. Attention of the petitioner was also drawn to rule 1.I.I of the Rules framed by the first respondent regarding eligibility of regular candidates to have 75% of attendance counted from the opening of Class X upto the first of the month preceding the month in which the examination of the Board, i.e., the first respondent, was to commence. The petitioner was also informed that as per rule 1.3 of the Rules for condonation of shortage in attendance, shortage upto 15% only would be condoned and that cases of shortage falling below 60% in Class X shall not be considered. The petitioner was, therefore, not allowed to sit in the examination of Class X. This led her to file the present writ petition. By an interim order the respondent was directed to issue to the petitioner admission card for the public examination commencing from 3 March 1994 and to permit her to sit in the said examination. This was on account of the fact that this Court formed a prima facie opinion that the petitioner could sit as a private candidate under rule 1.2.1.(a) of the Rules. On the next date of hearing even before there was any report of service on the respondents of the notices issued in the writ petition and the interim application, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents had permitted the petitioner to appear in the examination as a private candidate and in that view of the matter he did not want to press the petition. The petition was, therefore, dismissed as not pressed. The first respondent then filed an application for recalling this order and said that the respondent did not allow the petitioner to take the examination as a private candidate and that the petitioner could not have appeared as a private candidate as per Rules. It was also submitted that the result of the petitioner could not be declared as a private candidate, nor ?he was entitled to any such relief from the first respondent. Correctness of the statement made by the petitioner while withdrawing the petition was, thus, disputed. This application was allowed and the writ petition was restored to its original number and it had also been directed that the result of the petitioner would not be declared. First respondent then filed its answer to show cause notice and to which the petitioner also submitted her rejoinder.

(2.) The facts are quite brief. The petitioner was a student of Class X for the academic year 1992-93. The examination of the first respondent to Class X examination was to be held in March 1993, but it is stated that the petitioner fell ill in the middle of February 1993 and had to be hospitalised. Due to her continued illness she could not appear in the examination that year. The petitioner again got admission in the school in Class X as a regular candidate and now for the academic year 1993-94. As ill luck would have it, the petitioner again fell ill and could not attend all the classes and her attendance fell short, and, as noted above, she could attend only 20% of the classes during the academic year 1993-94. As per Rules of the first respondent, the petitioner, therefore, could not be issued admission card and she could not take the examination. For the academic year 1992-93 the petitioner did attend over 75% of the classes. The questions which fell for consideration were if the attendance for the academic year 1992-93 could be considered for the following year 1993-94, or if the petitioner could nevertheless sit as a private candidate. The petitioner was a regular candidate for the year 1993-94, and to be eligible to take the examination rule I.I.I was applicable and the petitioner had to undergo adequate course of studies which meant 75% of attendance counted from the opening of Class X upto the first of the month preceding the month in which the examination of the Board commenced. It is also mentioned that failed candidates who had rejoined Class X shall also be required to put in 75% of attendances calculated on the possible attendances from the first of the month following the publication of the results by the Board to the first of the month preceding the month in which the exarnination of the Board commenced. Rule 1.2 deals with eligibility conditions for private candidates and, in relevant part, it states that a candidate who fails at the examination of the Board may reappear at the subsequent examination as a private candidate in the syllabus and text books as prescribed for the examination of the year in which he will reappear. Then there are further rules as to how the application of a private candidate for appearing in the examination had to be forwarded and countersigned by the Principal of the school affiliated with the Board, etc. Admittedly, the petitioner did not fulfil all these conditions to appear as a private candidate and she was allowed to take the examination on account of the interim order of this Court. Then the Rules also provided that a woman private candidate shall not be allowed to offer science with practical work until she had put in a regular course of study in an institution affiliated to the Board and produces a certificate to the effect to the satisfaction of the Board. This condition will also bar the petitioner to appear as a private candidate as she could not be allowed to offer science with practical work which she did and she had not put in regular course of study in the school. We have also noticed that the expression "adequate course of studies" meant 75% of attendances counted as mentioned above.

(3.) We did call for the result of the petitioner and after examining the same we found that she did pass Class X examination. But then when the petitioner could not appear as a regular candidate or even as a private candidate, could this Court allow the petition and declare the petitioner having passed the Class X examination when only by an interlocutory order she was allowed to take the examination. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the C.B.S.E., referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kr. Bansal and another, JT 1993 (SUPP) S.C. 449. In this case the High Court by an interim order had directed admission of M.B.B.S. students to Internship Course and later by a final order directed that their Internship be regularised. The Supreme Court severly commented on this and said as under :-