SADHNA UPADHYAYA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the common order dated 8 -3 -2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petitions No. 934/2001 and 2196/2001, appellant has filed this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. A brief resume of the facts required to be stated for disposal of the appeal is as follows: Appellant was the Principal of Durga Higher Secondary School, Kolghar (Rewa) (hereinafter referred to as the "School"). The respondent No. 6 filed Writ Petition No. 2196/2001 and the respondents No. 3, 4, and 5 filed Writ Petition No. 934/2001 praying for release of their results which were withheld by the Board of Secondary Education, M.P. Bhopal.

(2.) IN both the above referred writ petitions the respondent No. 2 Board submitted a reply contending inter alia that it had issued certain instructions to the Principals of the schools throughout the State for the purpose of satisfying the conditions precedent for grant of recognition. The Board has also issued letter/circular in relation to the conditions by which certain formalities including the admission of the students were to be completed by particular date. The Board also put forth that 445 students of the School filled up their examination forms and their list was sent to the Board for scrutiny. On verification of the contents of the forms, the Board found that 115 students were not in the original admission list furnished by the school. On further scrutiny of the examination forms the Board found that 91 students were ineligible to appear in the Higher Secondary Examination. The Board further submitted that the respondents No. 3 to 6 fell into the category of ineligible candidates. In the list sent by the school the name of Smt. Shri Devi was mentioned but admission number, date of admission or enrolment number was not given in the list. It was pleaded that fraud has been practiced as a result of which a letter was sent by the Board to the appellant whereby the school was required to submit necessary information and documents. On inquiry it was found that the students who were earlier found ineligible and regarding whom further relevant information was sought for by the Board were not eligible to appear in the aforesaid examination. As a consequence of the aforesaid scrutiny the results of ineligible candidates were cancelled and communication to that effect was sent to the school.

(3.) IN view of the Board's return, the appellant was arrayed as respondent and notice was served on her. Appellant filed her return in both the writ petitions. In W.P. No. 2169 of 2001 her submission was that due to clerical mistake serial numbers of some of the candidates were missing. In compliance of the Board directions all the original records of the school were also sent to the Board for its perusal. The Board has chosen to harass the students on one pretext or the other. In Writ Petition No 934/2001, it was submitted by the appellant that the respondent No. 3, Sandeep Singh was a student of Biology branch and was placed at serial No. 177 in the list prepared by the school on 11 -8 -1999. Respondent No. 4 was a student of Mathematics branch and her name was shown at serial No. 2 of the list dated 28 -8 -1999. She also submitted that a cheque of Rs. 1050.00 was sent to Bhopal office of the Board instead of its Rewa office due to clerical error. The appellant submitted that withholding of result of respondent No. 4 on the ground that her name did not find place in the list supplied by the school is incorrect. The Bhopal office of the Board has lost the list because of which the innocent students are suffering. The Board has chosen not to release result of the respondents No. 3 to 5 even though complete documentation was made available to it. Regarding respondent No. 5, Ashish Singh, the appellant submitted that his name was at serial No. 5 in the list dated 28 -8 -1999 of Art group. His result also cannot be withheld by the respondent/Board as the Board itself lost the list which was duly received in its office along with the Banker's cheque towards the examination fees submitted by the school. A copy of the list dated 28 -8 -1999 was submitted by the appellant along with her return.