MUHAMMED ASHIQUE C.S Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case projected in this Writ Petition is as follows: - That the petitioner had appeared for the Secondary School Leaving Certificate (SSLC) examination conducted by the 2nd respondent Board of Public Examinations, Government of Kerala, with registration No.251564 during March, 2015 and that the result of the SSLC examination was published on 20.4.2015. That the petitioner had passed the said examination and had also received Ext.P -1 mark list dated 20.4.2015 making him eligible for admission to the higher secondary courses. That to utter shock and dismay, in Ext.P -1 rank list received, it was noted in the subject column "Hindi", the 2nd respondent had shown another subject "General Knowledge" and that this was wrongly included, as the petitioner's subject was "Hindi" and not "General Knowledge". That the petitioner had applied for admission to Std.XI of the higher secondary course at 3rd respondent aided higher secondary school, but his application seeking admission to the said course was rejected on the ground that the subject relating to "Hindi" has been wrongly shown as "General Knowledge". That accordingly the petitioner had lost one academic year and that he had approached the 3rd respondent for correcting the wrong entry in Ext.P -1 wrong mark list, who had in turn forwarded his application dated 18.11.2015 to the 2nd respondent Board of Public Examinations, requesting correction in Ext.P -1 mark list, as evidenced Ext.P -2 dated 18.11.2015. That even in spite of Ext.P -2 dated 18.11.2015, the 2nd respondent had not corrected the wrong entry in Ext.P -1 mark list dated 20.4.2015 and therefore the petitioner was constrained to issue Ext.P -3 legal notice dated 18.5.2016 to the 2nd respondent, which was received by him as per Ext.P -4 on 23.5.2016. That due to the callous attitude of the 2nd respondent and due to inordinate delay caused in considering the application, the petitioner apprehended that his admission to Std.XI for the academic year 2016 -17 would also be denied as the said correction in Ext.P -1 was not done. The petitioner further contends that, in the light of the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case Ritubala Soni v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2001 KHC 3514, the 2nd respondent is bound to pay compensation to the petitioner, etc. It is in the light of these aspects that the petitioner had instituted the above Writ Petition (Civil) on 13.5.2015 with the following main prayers:

(2.) Later the Writ Petition was amended so as to incorporate the following additional prayers:

(3.) When the Writ Petition had come up for admission on 17.6.2016, this Court had directed the 2nd respondent to ensure that expeditious steps are taken to effect necessary corrections in Ext.P -1 mark list of the petitioner, without any further delay and report compliance of that matter to the petitioner, as the admissions to the Plus Two courses even for the academic year 2016 -17 were about to be concluded. At that stage, this Court had heard Sri.A.N.Rajan Babu, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent SNDP school, and the 3rd respondent, on the request of this Court had agreed that one seat will be kept reserved for admitting the petitioner so as to accommodate him in one of the management seats of the said course of that school.