ASHOK KESHORAM AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the father of a girl, who was at the relevant time studying in the school of the fourth respondent. She appeared for the 9th standard examination in March 1988 and the fourth respondent declared her as having failed. It was the case of the petitioner that despite having been declared as failed, his daughter was entitled to the benefit of a rule to be found in appendix seven of the Secondary Schools Code. This rule provides for certain grace marks to be given in the case of students who failed. The maximum of the grace marks is also specified in the said rule. According to the petitioner, if this rule is followed, his daughter would have to be declared as having passed the 9th standard examination and would have been entitled to be promoted to the 10th standard.

(2.) THERE is certain correspondence between the petitioner and the education officer on the one hand and the petitioner and the fourth respondent on the other. After considering the representation made by the petitioner to the education officer, the latter sent a letter dated June 23, 1988 pointing out to the fourth respondent that the petitioner's daughter was entitled to be promoted to the 10th standard in the light of the rule referred to above. The education officer asked the fourth respondent to revise the result of the petitioner's daughter and promote her to the 10th standard. The fourth respondent was also asked to explain the reasons as to why the petitioner's daughter was detained in the 9th standard for the year 1988 -89 inspite of the rule, to which the attention of the fourth respondent was drawn by the education officer.

(3.) WHEN the petition came up for admission before Daud J. on August 26, 1988, Daud J. passed a speaking order tentatively agreeing with the petitioner's contention and directing the fourth respondent to give a passing certificate which would enable the petitioner's daughter to seek admission to the 10th standard in another school. It was brought to the notice of Daud J. that another school, on what can be regarded as a proper interpretation of the aforesaid rule, thought that the petitioner's daughter was entitled to be declared as passed in the 9th standard examination and on that account the other school was prepared to admit the petitioner's daughter in the 10th standard. It has been mentioned that in compliance with this order of Daud J. the fourth respondent has already given a passing certificate, which has been availed of by the petitioner's daughter who has joined another school in 10th standard. Nevertheless, the question has been raised by the petitioner as to whether the fourth respondent, which is a private unaided school, can be compelled by a writ to be issued by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to follow a rule which finds its place in the Secondary Schools Code. In this question there are two more questions involved, in the first place, whether the fourth respondent is a State or an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and therefore is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Secondly, whether the rules constituting the Secondary Schools Code are statutory rules which can be enforced by a student against a school or for that matter against any other person.