PATEL HITEABEN RAMANBHAI Vs. DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts of the case appear to be that the petitioner completed HSC Examinations in General Stream in the month of April, 1999 and secured 64% of the marks. Thereafter, as per the petitioner, the certificate of HSC General Stream was surrendered and she got admission in another school for vocational stream. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter she appeared in the HSC vocational stream in the month of May 2001 and passed the same with 92.93% marks. The petitioner thereafter based on the result of the HSC vocational stream got admission in PTC in July, 2001. When she was prosecuting study of PTC, just before the examination of First Year, some inquiry was initiated as to whether she has surrendered the original mark-sheet of HSC General Stream or not. In the process of inquiry, the petitioner was also prohibited from appearing at the examination, but the same was permitted by this Court in the proceedings initiated by the petitioner. It appears that thereafter as the order was without giving any opportunity of hearing, a show-cause notice was given and it is the case of the petitioner that she further prosecuted the study of Second Year of PTC, but in the meantime, the impugned order came to be passed on 7.12.2002, whereby the result of the petitioner of HSC vocational stream was cancelled. It appears that thereafter, based on the said order of the Examination Committee of Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Board dated 7.12.2004 for cancelling the result of HSC vocational stream, the admission of the petitioner in PTC was also cancelled vide order dated 16.1.2003 pending the petition. Under these circumstances, the present petition.

(2.) Heard Mr.Parmar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.Raval, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Board and Mr.Parikh, learned AGP for the State Authorities.

(3.) It appears that it is an admitted position that the petitioner has appeared in the examination of 12th Standard HSC Vocational Stream and she has passed with marks above 90%. It is not the case of the respondent Board or the State authorities that there was any manipulation at the examination or that she did not genuinely score the marks at the examination of HSC. Therefore, on the aspects of her merit at the examination having successfully passed the HSC vocational stream, if there is no dispute, the matter is required to be considered keeping in view the said peculiar circumstance. The another peculiar circumstance, in the present case, is that the Board or the Examination Authority, at no point of time, raised the objection to the appearance of the petitioner at the examination on the ground that she was not fulfilling the eligible criteria for appearing at the examination of HSC vocational stream or the admission was wrongly given or that some documents were not genuine. The fact remains that on account of no action taken by the Examination Authority or the Board, as the case may be, the petitioner prosecuted the study and has successfully passed the examinations of HSC vocational stream with the marks above 90%. The third aspect in the present case is that when the petitioner got admission in PTC, at that stage also no action was taken and it is only at the stage when the petitioner was to appear at the examination of First Year of PTC, the action was initiated by the Board and based on the same, the petitioner was prohibited from appearing at the examinations of First Year of PTC, but in view of the orders passed by this Court in the other proceedings, the petitioner had appeared at the examinations and it is the case of the petitioner that the said First Year PTC examinations were successfully cleared, but before she could appear in the Second Year of PTC, the action is concluded against her.