ASHOKE SAHA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 10.12.98 passed by a learned single Judge of this court in W.P. No. 20530 (W) of 1998, whereby and where under the writ application filed by the writ-petitioner was dismissed. The writ-petitioner-appellant is the father of a student, Miss. Anima Saha. She appeared in the Secondary Examination in the year 1977 and was placed in Second Division having obtained 56% of the total marks. She was admitted in Baidyabati Charushila Bose Balika Vidyalaya in Class XI in Science stream. She had also been promoted to Class XII. When her registration form was sent to the second respondent, the same was rejected, inter alia, on the ground that she was not qualified to be admitted. The learned trial Judge having considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties had come to the conclusion that the daughter of the writ-petitioner-appellant having not fulfilled the eligibility criteria for getting admission in the Science stream, had rightly been refused by the second respondent to appear at the examination.

(2.) Mr. Basu Mallick, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has, inter alia, raised three questions in support of this appeal. The learned counsel submits that the daughter of the appellant cannot be said to be aware of regulation and it was for the school authorities to see that she gets admission in proper courses to which she was entitled to. Mr. Basu Mallick would urge that having admitted and promoted the appellant, the School authorities and consequently, the second respondent are estopped and precluded from placing an embargo in the matter of her appearance at the examination. The learned counsel has submitted that in terms of Regulation 2(c) (i) of the West Bengal Council of Higer Secondary Education (Examination) Regulations, 1982, the Council having power to condone or make exemption, it is a fit case in which such a power ought to have been exercised. The learned counsel submits that in terms of Regulation 14 of the West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education (Admission and Allied Matters) Regulations, 1987, the minimum marks having been prescribed as 45%, it was for the school authorities to see that the petitioner was not admitted and in any event, permitted to change the elective subject in terms of Regulation 12. According to the learned counsel, the daughter of the petitioner cannot suffer owing to latches and negligence on the part of the school authorities. Strong reliance in this connection has been placed on Shri Krishan v. The Kurukshetra University reported in AIR 1976 SC 376, Dr. Mrs. Sheela Ashok Patwardhan v. The Dean, Dr. V.M. Medical College, Solarpur & Ors. reported in AIR 1989 SC 383, Sanatan Gauda v. Berhampur University & Ors. reported in AIR 1990 SC 1075 and Sk. Abdul Rahim v. Judhisthir Rout reported in 1997(1) CLJ 143.

(3.) Mr. Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent on the other hand, submitted that the matter relating to admission in Class XI being guided by a statutory regulation no pupil could be admitted to Class XI who does not fulfil the requisite criteria. The learned counsel submits that in the writ application it was not pleaded that the form for registration of the candidate was accompanied by the prescribed fees. It was pointed out that in terms of the Rules, such form for registration should be filed in the month of January and not later then the month of July of the relevant year; whereas in the instant case the form for registration of the writ-petitioner-appellant was sent in September and the same had been refused in that month itself, which would go to show that there was no delay and/or latches on the part of his client. The learned counsel submits that the third proviso appended to Regulation 2(c) (i) of the Examination Regulations, 1982 cannot be said to have any application in the instant case inasmuch as the power to condone or make exemption by the council is referable to the condition referred to in the said provision and not in respect of a pupil who was not registered at all. Mr. Chatterjee, submits that the court is not to be guided by misplaced sympathy and in support of the said contention, strong reliance has been placed on Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kr. Bansal and Ors. reported in 1993 (4) SCC 401.