SRIDHAR SAMAL Vs. BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sridhar Samal, a scheduled caste youth, filed this writ application against the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa represented by its Secretary seeking to a writ of mandamus to direct the opposite party to supply his mark-sheet and provisional pass certificate of the Annual High School Certificate Examination held in 1982 within the time specified.

(2.) The relevant facts as stated in the writ application may be stated thus: The petitioner was a student of the Lower Primary School and Middle English School at Choudwar till 1975. He was admitted in the Municipal High School; Choudwar in July, 1975 where he read up to 1978 in Classes VIII, IX and X. On account of poverty and illness he discontinued his studies from 1978 to 1981 and got himself admitted to Narendra Kumar Parida Ucha Vidyapitha. Maninathpur in July, 1981 in Class XI, he was sent up as a regular candidate of the school to appear in the Annual High School Certificate Examination of 1982 and took the examination from Bahudarada High School Centre. He was assigned the roll No. 49M 147. When the results of the examination were published by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa (for short, "the Board") the petitioner was declared to have passed in third division - vide extract of the result sheet, Annexure 3. He deposited a sum of Rs. 5/- with the Board for his mark sheet and a further sum of Rs. 5/- for the provisional certificate on 6-7-82. He again deposited a sum of Rs. 10/- on 3-8-90 for getting the said documents. But the certificates have not been issued to him despite repeated approaches made to the concerned officials of the Board. The petitioner alleged that two other school mates of his, Bijoy Kumar Mandal having Roll No. 49 M l45 and Govinda Chandra Behara having Roll No. 49M 150 whose certificates had not been issued initially received them in 1984. According to the petitioner, this was possible because of manipulations and offer of illegal gratification to the employees of the Board which the petitioner on account of his poverty could not afford. Having knocked at the doors of the Board several times without success the petitioner filed the writ application through the assistance of the Secretary, Legal Aid, Cuttack. It is the submission of the petitioner that having cleared the examination and the Board having declared his result he is entitled to receive copies of the marksheet and provisional pass certificate. Hence the writ application seeking the relief noted earlier.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Board it is admitted that the petitioner had appeared at the H.S.C. Examination, 1982 as a regular candidate of N.K.P.U. Vidyapitha and was declared to have passed in third division. It is stated that suspecting the genuineness of the candidates presented for Annual H.S.C. Examination, 1982 due to abnormal increase in the number of regular candidates presented by the Headmaster, N.K.P.U. Vidyapitha, the Headmaster was requested to produce records for verification by 4-5-82 before publication of results vide letter No. 5751 (4) dated 26-4-82 (Annexure A). Since the Headmaster did not comply with the request he was reminded by letter No. 5837-5842 (Annexure B) sent by registered post on 22-6-82 and was requested to produce the records by 26-6-82 failing which the results of the candidates presented through his School would be withheld. In spite of the said reminder when the Headmaster did not comply with the request, it was decided to withhold the results of the candidates of the School, but by that time the publication of provisional results of pass candidates was under process and the decision to withhold the results of the candidates of N.X.P.U. Vidyapitha could not be reflected in the booklet of provisional results of the Examination. Again on 30-6-82 the Headmaster was telegraphically informed to produce the records by 10-7-82 or else the applications of the candidates will be treated as cancelled (Annexure C). In response to the said telegraph the Headmaster produced some transfer certificates including that of the petitioner and stated that other records like admission register, attendance register, collection of fees register etc,, were not available since they had been damaged in the last cyclone (Annexure D). On receiving the transfer certificates from the Headmaster, the officials of the Board verified the genuineness of the documents through the concerned schools from which they were obtained. Out of 107 candidates it was found that transfer certificates of 51 candidates were genuine and accordingly their results were published; with respect to the rest of the candidates the Headmaster could not produce the transfer certificates of 21 candidates and transfer certificates of 35 candidates were found to be tampered/forged. Regarding the petitioner, the case of the Board is that it was found that while he was reading in Class X during the session 1978-79 in the Municipal High School, Choudhwar he left the school on 31-12-78 and took T. C. on 7-11-79. Thereafter during the session 1981-82 he got himself admitted in Class XI of N. K. P. U. Vidyapitha, thereby forging the transfer certificate to show that he had passed Class X from Municipal High School and also forging the date of birth to be 9-2-66 instead of 24-8-61. On the above ground the results of the remaining candidates including the petitioner were cancelled and the decision was communicated to the Headmaster vide notification No. 69 / 753 dated 13-1-84 (Annexure E). In these circumstances, it is contended by the opp. party that the question of issuing copies of mark-sheet and pass certificate did not arise. Regarding the other two candidates named in the writ petition it is stated in the counter-affidavit that on verification of the school records it was ascertained that Gobind Chandra Behera was a genuine candidate and therefore his result was published by the Board. The result of Bijay Kumar Mandal like that of the petitioner was withheld, but erroneously the Headmaster of the School appears to have issued the marksheet to him (Annexure 5). Though rejoinders to the counter, affidavit in reply to the rejoinder and further affidavit have been filed by the parties, the averments therein are arguments in support of the respective cases of the parties and certain facts which are not very relevant for the present purpose.