KUMARI KINI DIXIT Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks relief that the respondents be commanded to treat the petitioner qualified as per Rule 2.4.1 of the P.P.T. Rules and the respondents be commanded to grant opportunity to the petitioner to appear in the councilling and she be given admission in P.P.T. course 1998 in the college as per her merits in the list.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the petition are; that the petitioner took up her examination for session 1997-98 of 10th class conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education. It appears that she could not clear all the subjects in the first attempt therefore, in Hindi course A she was given compartment. After appearing in the examination the petitioner also took up examination of Pre-Polytechnic test (PPI) 1998 which is in fact a entrance test conducted by the Professional Examination Board, M. P. The petitioner passed in the PPT examination and could secure 68.48%. It appears that before the petitioner took part in the councilling she had taken compartment examinations and she was declared passed. In the councilling dated 16-9-98 it was observed by the committee that as the petitioner has not passed in the main examination she was not entitled to be admitted to the course of PPT, they accordingly refused to grant her admission. Being aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the petitioner has filed this petition.

(3.) The submission of Shri Kohli learned counsel for the petitioner is that according to the Scheme of examinations and pass criteria of the Central Board of Secondary Education a person would be declared pass if he obtained a grade higher than E (i.e. at least 33% marks) in all the subjects offered of external examination in the main or at the compartmental examination therefore, compartmental examination would be a part of the main examination and could not be treated as second or subsequent examination. He further submits that according to paragraph 2.5 of the said scheme a person is entitled to the compartment examinations if he has passed in the required subjects but fails or does not obtain required mark in one particular subject. According to him paragraph 2.4.1 of the P.P.T. entrance policy could not be used against her because the petitioner did not take any subsequent examination nor had appeared in any succeeding or supplementary examinations. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as marks of the compartments are to be substituted for the marks of the original examinations it must be deemed that the result is substituted and as such paragraph 2.4.1 would not be a bar to admission for the present petitioner. Shri J. P. Agarwal learned counsel for the State and Shri Rakesh Shroti for respondent No. 2 vehemently opposing the petition submits that the petitioner is confusing himself in the main examination and the compartment examinations. According to them the phraseology and the note appended to paragraph 2.4.1 would make it abanduntly clear that the candidate is required to pass in the main examination taken by the candidate and not in any subsequent examination, be it a compartment, supplementary or subsequent examination. To jettison the arguments of Shri Kohli it was contended that Rule 2.4.1 on its fair reading would make it clear that a person who had not passed in the main examination, which would mean the first examination, then he would not be entitled to admission in the course.