PRATAP KUMAR RATH Vs. BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application presents the woeful story of some candidates who had appeared in Certificate Course in Physical Education Examination, 1990 as private candidates, and who having been declared to have passed the examination on 12-11-90 were again declared to have failed by notification dated 14-12-1990. The petitioners, in number of Jagannath College of Physical Education, Mundal have prayed for commanding the apposite parties to restore their results declaring them to have passed and to quash Annexure-2 dated 14-12-90 communicating the revised results declaring them to have failed.

(2.) The facts of the case may be briefly stated thus :- The petitioners had all appeared as private candidates in the P.E.T. Examination, 1990 at the Government College of P.E.T. held in Secondary Board High School, Cuttack and their results were communicated by opposite party No. 2, the Principal, Government College of Physical Education, Orissa to the Principal, Jagannath College of physical Education by letter dated 3-12-1990, Annexure-1. Subsequently, the Board of Secondary Education, opposite party No. 1 by notification No. 1427 dated 14-12-90 declared that the petitioners had failed in the examination. It is this action of the opposite party No. 1, which is the conducting authority for the examination, that has been challenged in this writ application. It is averred in the petition that Chapter XG of the Regulation of the Board framed under S. 21 of the Orissa Secondary Education Act, 1953 (far short, 'the Act') and approved by the Government in notification dated 17-2-1969 provides for the Regulation for conduct of certificate course in physical education examination. Clauses 8 and 9 of the Chapter deal with respectively the written examination and the practical examination for the candidates. These prescribe 400 marks for the written test and 400 marks for the practical. It is provided in Clause 10(a) that a candidate to pass in third division shall have secure at least 30% in each of the written papers and 50% in practical portion. It is contended that notwithstanding the aforesaid provisions, the candidates had appeared in written examination for 300 marks and for practical examination consisting of two parts of 300 marks each. Their contention is that they having secured 50% marks in the practical examination calculated on the basis that 400 marks were prescribed for the practical must be taken to have passed in the examination according to the provision contained in Clause 10(a) of the Chapter. According to them they have not been accused of taking resort to any malpractice and as such there was no reason as to why they having been declared to have passed shall again be declared to have failed in the self-same examination of the year, 1990. Their further contention is that the opposite party No. 1 should be estpped from declaring them to have failed once they have been declared to have passed in the examination.

(3.) Opposite Party No. 1, the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa represented by its Secretary, while not denying the factual averments made by the petitioners, in the writ application has contended, inter alia, that the results were provisionally declared in which the petitioners were shown to have passed, but after the post publication review when it was found that they having failed to secure 50% marks in the practical portion of the examination they were declared to have failed. It is also contended that the Bard is competent to rectify the mistake committed at the time of tabulation, and as such there was no illegality in rectifying the mistakes committed and in publishing the results subsequently. It is also submitted that the results declared on 12-11-90 was provisional in nature subject to modification on post publication review, and as such the subsequent result published on 14-12-90 is not open to challenge nor does the rule of estoppel apply.