ABHISHEK MISHRA Vs. MAHARISHIVIDYA MANDIR, MANDLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of Annexure -P -3 and to command the respondents to give admission card to him and to allow him to appear in the examination and to declare his results.

(2.) THE facts as have been unfolded are that the petitioner is a student of Maharishi Vidya Mandir, Mandla and was regularly attending his classes in the school. The respondent -school is affiliated to respondent No. 2, Central Beard of Secondary Education, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'). The petitioner took admission in the school in the year 1995 and his performance in the school was excellent. He had passed all examinations with high percentage and there was never any complaint against him from any quarter. The academic session of 2000 -2001 commenced in April, 2000 and the petitioner started attending the school regularly from 15 -5 -2000 to 30 -6 -2000. Thereafter, summer vacation intervened and after summer vacation he started regularly attending the classes and according to him his percentage of attendance would exceed 90%. It has been putforth that at no point of time it was intimated to him that he was not regular in school or there would be shortage of percentage of attendance. The petitioner filled up the examination form on 29 -9 -2000 and the respondents collected the examination fee from him. It has been averred that the petitioner appeared in the Unit tests as well as half yearly examination. On 12 -2 -2000 the Board conducted practical examination in respect of Science subject. The petitioner was permitted to undertake the practical examination. From 15 -2 -2001, the admission cards of Xth Standard were distributed in the school to the students but the same was not given to the petitioner. Thereafter, the father of the petitioner tried to contact the Principal but the same could not be possible as the Principal was away at Delhi for attending a Seminar. The father of the petitioner contacted other teachers but they were not in a position to indicate the reason. Eventually, the father of the petitioner contacted the Principal who initially did not say anything but later on after receipt of a letter from the father of the petitioner, he sent a reply vide Annexure -P -3 dated 1 -3 -2001 stating that the attendance of the petitioner was 52.7%, and hence, he could not be issued the admission card as per the instructions of the Board. It has been averred in the petition that the allegation with regard to shortage of attendance is totally baseless and erroneous. It has been pleaded that the petitioner had been regularly attending his classes, and therefore, question of shortage of attendance does not arise. It has also been pleaded that the respondents are estopped to take such a plea in as much as the petitioner was never intimated about shorage of attendance.

(3.) A return has been filed by the respondent No. 1 contending, inter alia, that the petitioner remained continuously absent from the school for the whole month of July and August and first three weeks of September, 2000. He did not even appear in the unit tests which were conducted in the month of July, 2000. The Examination Forms were issued on 20 -9 -2000. The petitioner was permitted to fill up the form and the examination forms of all the students were sent to the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2, the Board, by its letter dated 25 -1 -2001, Annexure -R -1/1, sent the Admission Cards of all the 25 students of Class Xth including the admission card of the petitioner. It has been putforth that another student, namely, Ku. Pooja Thakur, was also having short attendance and her examination form was also sent by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2, and the Admission Card in respect of her was also sent by the Board. However, the Board by letter dated 25 -1 -2000 specifically instructed that the admission cards in respect of students whose attendance fell short of the prescribed percentage or otherwise not eligible to take the examination may be detained by the Principal under intimation to the respondent No. 2, the Board. It is submitted that the answering respondents taking into consideration the short attendance of the petitioner as well as of Ku. Pooja Thakur mentioned their names in the letter in the column prescribed for mentioning the names in respect of the candidates whose admission cards had been detained. The school issued the admission cards to the other 23 students. The case of the respondent No. 1 is that it has acted in accordance with the instructions issued by the Board and indicated to the Board by letter dated 14 -2 -2001 that their admission cards have been detained as their attendance was below 60%. Relevant extract of the attendance in respect of Class Xth of the school has been brought on record as Annexure - R -1/3. It has been putforth that the father of the petitioner vide letter dated 1 -3 -2001, Annexure -R -1/4, intimated to the respondents regarding non -issuance of admission card and Principal vide letter dated 1 -3 -2001, Annexure -R -1/5, intimated that the petitioner had 52.7% of attendance, and therefore, admission card was not issued to him. It has also been putforth that this Court by interim measure directed the petitioner to appear in the examination and accordingly the petitioner has been permitted to appear in the examination. It has been further stated that the petitioner falsely stated in the writ petition that his attendance is about 90% and he is being deliberately not permitted to appear in the final examination by the answering respondents. It has been putforth that the statement made by the petitioner in his writ petition is absolutely false and incorrect and the respondent No. 1 has annexed the certificates of teachers including that of the class teacher and the said certificates have been brought on record as Annexures -R -1/8 to R -1/11. Certain Rules have been referred to substantiate the action of the respondent No. 1. It has been further putforth that as per Rules attendance below 60% cannot be condoned, and therefore, the petitioner was rightly not given admission card, and on that score no fault can be found with the respondent No. 1.