ARSHDEEP Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OF SECONDARY AND HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION NAGPUR DIVISIONAL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition by a XIIth standard student, two contentions are raised. (i) clause 88 (1) (a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Eduction Boards Regulations, 1977 (the Regulations) relating to compulsory attendance in the class by a regular student is unconstitutional. (ii) Having handed over an Admission Card for the examination and allowed her to appear for the practical examination, the respondent No. 1 Board is estopped from prohibiting her participation in the rest of the examination under the undisputed factual background.

(2.) IN our view, contention No. (i) has to be repelled and contention No. (ii) has to be upheld for the reasons that follow. The petitioner Ku. Arshdeep Puri was prosecuting her studies as a regular student of XII class in St. Josephs Convent Junior College, Nagpur of which respondent No. 2 is the Principal. XII standard examination is conducted by the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Nagpur Divisional Board, Nagpur constituted under the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards Act, 1965 (the Act ). The petitioner submitted an application form for appearing for that examination to the Divisional Board through respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 issued an Admission Card to the petitioner through the respondent No. 2 and pursuant to the said Admission card, the petitioner appeared for the Practical Examinations held by the respondent No. 1 in the subjects of Chemistry, Textile and Biology upto 8th March, 1990. Theory examination was to commence on 15th March. On 13-3-1990 the father of the petitioner was informed by respondent No. 2 that as per telegraphic communication received from respondent No. 1, the petitioners application for appearing for the examination was rejected due to shortage of attendance in the class for the second part of the session. This petition was filed on 14-3-1990. By an ad -interim order the petitioner was allowed to appear for the theory papers as per the Admission Card originally issued, but her result was withheld. Accordingly the petitioner has appeared for the examination but her result is not declared. According to the respondent No. 1, while her attendance in the class in the first session was 78. 20% the attendance in the second session was only 50% which is below the minimum required and when this deficiency was noticed, the application form was rejected. According to the petitioner, absence for such a longer period in the second session was due to intermittent illness which was beyond her control, the correct factual position about her attendance was available with the respondent No. 1 and she was not guilty of any fraud or misrepresentation.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 1, while not disputing the correctness of the factual stand taken by the petitioner, has sought to defend the action on the ground that the shortage below 60% was not condonable for any reason under clause 88 of the Regulations. Its further stand is that the preparation of Admission Cards started as usual even before the academic session was over in view of a large number of students appearing for the examination and they were dispatched to the respondent No. 2 as soon as they were prepared. In the heavy rush of work scrutiny of the application was not possible before commencement of the examination and as soon as the shortage of attendance in the second session was noticed on 13-3-1990, a telegraphic communication was sent to the effect that the shortage was not condoned and hence the Admission Card should be returned for cancellation.