ADARSH KUMAR PATEL Vs. BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has invoked extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of following directions against the respondents:

(2.) FACTS in brief necessary for the decision of the case are that the petitioner was a regular student of respondent No. 2 in the year 2003-04. He appeared in the examination successfully achieved 256 marks out of 450 marks and was declared passed in second division. Petitioner who was not satisfied with the performance and wanted to improve his grade sought re-admission in Higher Secondary in respondent No. 2 school. Respondent No. 2 though permitted the petitioner to attend the classes but had not granted status of regular student. Petitioner aggrieved by the action of the respondent No. 2 filed a complaint before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Mandla which was registered as Case No. 45/2004 and decided on 9-11-2004. The District Consumer Forum allowed the application and directed the respondent No. 2 to include the name of the petitioner as a regular student and to take appropriate steps in this regard. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 recommended the matter of petitioner to respondent No. 1, but the respondent No. 1 by letter dated 24-1-2005 Annexure P-4 turned down the request. Respondent No. 1 referred that the Board was not a party before the District Consumer forum nor the District Consumer Forum has jurisdiction on the examination system of the Board. Thereafter, petitioner has filed this petition for the aforesaid reliefs.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 2 submitted that the petitioner sought admission in the Higher Secondary and deposited requisite fees of a regular student. The matter was placed before the Managing Committee which took a decision that no regular admission will be given for improvement of the marks. Copy of the decision dated 22-6-2004 is Annexure R-2/1,. . As per the decision of the Managing Committee, petitioner was not entitled for admission as a regular student and was only entitled for permission of sitting in the classroom for studies. Though the petitioner insisted for regular student but as it was not possible, so the prayer was turned down. Petitioner was duly informed in this regard by letter dated 4-8-2004 (Annexure R-2/2 ). Last date for getting admission as a regular student was 12-8-2004 and the petitioner was well informed within time in this regard about the decision of the Managing Committee. Petitioner approached to the District Consumer Forum and the matter was decided by the Forum by order dated 9-11-2004. Last date for admission as regular student had already expired on 12-8-2004 and the list of regular student was sent to the respondent No. 1, hence the respondent No. 2 wrote a letter to respondent No. 1 informing the decision of the District Consumer Forum, Mandla by Annexure R-2/3. Respondent No. 1 was also informed by the Collector, Mandla who is ex-officio Chairman of the Managing Committee of the school and also by the District Education Officer, Mandla by letters Annexures R-2/4 and R-2/5. On receiving aforesaid letters, respondent No. 1 informed the petitioner as well respondent No. 2 that regular admission to the petitioner is not possible. Contending aforesaid, it is submitted by the respondent No. 2 that the petitioner has rightly denied admission as a regular student and the petition may be dismissed.