SIDHARTHA MISHRA Vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this batch of writ petitions the petitioners sought for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the opp.parties to publish the result of the students who appeared All India Secondary School (Class -X) Examination, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'AISSE) being sponsored by Childrens Paradise Public School, Badarukha under Dharmasala Police Station. As common question of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions, on the prayer and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, they are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE name of the petitioners in all the writ petitions, except in W.P.(C) No.9711 of 2006, where the President and Managing Committee of Childrens Paradise School are the petitioners, were registered under the Central Board of Secondary Education (hereinafter referred to as 'the CBSE) on 14.3.2005 and they filled up the forms to appear in AISSE, 2006. On 10.1.2006 a committee, being constituted by CBSE, conducted an enquiry to ascertain the eligibility of the petitioner -students for their appearance in the said Examination and on completion of the enquiry Admit Cards were issued in their favour on 28.2.2006 and they appeared in the examination on due date, as regular students in Kendriya Vidyalaya, A.R.C., Charbatia. Except result of the petitioner -students result of all other students appearing in the said examination was published by CBSE on 27.5.2006 and on query the petitioners learnt that since the sponsoring school could not meet some queries, made by the CBSE, their result was withheld. Subsequently, they came to now that the sponsoring school met all the queries of the CBSE. As per the writ petitions, having permitted the petitioner -students to appear in the examination the opp.parties were duty bound to publish their result. Hence the writ petitions.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that after going through the reports of the two Enquiry Committees when the CBSE allowed the petitioners to appear in AISSE, 2006, now it cannot fall back and say that they were not eligible to appear in the said examination. They are estopped to say so, in view of the doctrine of promissory estoppel and accordingly they urged to allow the writ petitions. Learned counsel for the opp.parties, per contra, submit that the first Enquiry Committee reported that the eligibility or otherwise of the 81 sponsored candidates could not be ascertained for want of production of complete records of the school. The second Committee in its report opined that the school manipulated the records and managed to get some outside candidates registered. So the name and number of eligible candidates being uncertain, keeping in view the future career of the candidates and due to paucity of time, the Board provisionally allowed those 81 candidates to appear in the examination, subject to condition that the original record of the school would be further inspected and verified to ascertain their eligibility. On further verification, when the 64 candidates were not found eligible as per the Examination Bye -Laws of the Board to appear in AISSE, 2006 the principle of promissory estoppel cannot be attracted. Accordingly learned counsel for the opp.parties pressed to dismiss the writ petition. The points for consideration are : -