APARUP GHOSAL Vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) :- In the instant case since the petitioner wanted early disposal or at least direction for publication of the result, the matter is taken up for hearing without giving any direction for exchange of affidavits. It appears that the writ application was moved ex parte, when on 26th Feb., 2003 Arun Kumar Mitra, J. allowed the petitioner's appearance to the final examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education shortly named as C.B.S.E. by issuing appropriate Admit Card. In terms of the interim order the petitioner has appeared in the said examination. The petitioner's grievance is against the school authority for non-delivery of admit card, which was sent by the Board. This writ application has been opposed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2. None appears for the school authority. The learned Advocate for the said Board has placed different rules and regulations as well as the communication before this Court. Let the xerox copy of the documents as produced today before this Court be kept with the record. From the documents as placed before this Court by the respondents, it appears that a student is eligible to appear in the final examination conducted by C.B.S.E. on securing 75% attendance in the classes held. Rule 13 for admission to examination has been referred to this effect, which reads thus:

(2.) In the instant case it appears that school authority did not recommend the name of the petitioner for such special consideration. The school authority by its communication dated 28th Feb., 2003 addressed to the Regional Officer of the said Board had written to this effect :

(3.) The learned Advocate for the respondents Board had relied upon the two judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education Vs. Nikhil Gulati & Anr reported in (1998) S.C.C. 5 and C.B.S.E.and Another Vs. P. Sunil Kumar and Ors., reported in (1998) 55 S.C.C. 377 : [1998(4) SLR 378 (SC)] . wherein the Apex Court held that non-eligible candidates should not be allowed to appear in the Board's examination and further held that on sympathetic ground the High Court will not pass any order by directing to publish the result to those candidates who are not at all eligible to appear in the examination. Having regard to such and considering the fact that the authority concerned acted in accordance with Rule, refusal to allow the petitioner to appear in the examination cannot be said as illegal or arbitrary. The petitioner has no legal right to pray for writ of mandamus.