SAMEER MATHUR Vs. HAPPY SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a student of Class 10th in the first respondent school which is a affiliated to the second respondent Central Board of Secondary Education. He has filed this writ petition against the action of the respondents jn not permitting him to appear in Class 10th examination of the CBSE. On the basis of the interim order . passed by this Court on 28th February,1997, the petitioner has been.allowed to - appear in the examination provisionally and subject to the ultimate decision in the writ petition. The result of the examination in the case of the petitioner has been withheld.

(2.) According to the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner has been studying in first respondent school since his admission to the Nursery class. It is alleged that respondent No. 1 never informed the petitioner that his attendance had fallen short and that he would be debarred from appearing in the examination. The petitioner has been allowed to appear in the practical examination conducted by the school. It is further stated that the reason for the shortage of attendance was that his father was hospitalized because of heart-attack in the later part of the month of December,1996 and continued to be under medical supervision. It is further alleged that despite all efforts to persuade respondent No.1 to give the roll number to the petitioner, they have refused to do so. According to the petitioner, the school authorities are trying to safeguard their reputation by denying opportunity to the petitioner to appear in the examination. Based on these averments, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent to allow the petitioner to appear in the class x examination conducted by the CBSE scheduled from 3rd March,1997 and also to issue the roll number to enable him to appear in the said examination.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 1 ,it has been pointed out that the petitioner had only 44.4% attendance during the academic year 1996-97. Respondent No. 1 has denied the allegation that the petitioner was never informed by the school about the shortage of attendance. It is stated that respondent No.1 had time and again told the petitioner and his parents that unless and until his attendance came upto the mark or the norms set by respondent No. 2, he might not be allowed to appear in the Board examinations. It is also stated that respondent had intimated the parents of the petitioner on 28th November.1996 about the shortage of attendance and had invited them to discuss the mater in the school on 29th November, 1996. It is further stated that the petitioner had written two letters through his mother Smt. Sunita Mathur which were in different hand writings. It appeared to respondent No. 1 that one of the letters had been written by the petitioner himself and the other had been written by the petitioner's mother. In the letter written by the petitioner's mother respondent No.1 was told that she had been suffering from slip-disc and high blood pressure and further that she had been advised complete bed rest by the Doctor and that his father and sisters were out of station. The petitioner's mother also promised to meet respondent No-1 as early as possible. In another letter of even date which appeared to have been written by the petitioner himself, it was mentioned that the petitioner was suffering from jaundice and applied for leave from 27th November, 1996 to 30th November, 1996.