SONIA SHIVALIKA MISHRA Vs. CHIEF EXECUTIVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN aggrieved student of Venketeswar English Medium School, Unit -IV, Bhubaneswar has filed this writ application for quashing of Annexure -1 wherein the committee constituted by Opp. Party No. 1 under Chapter -VI of the Rules of the Council for Conduct of Examination Centre rejected the representation of the Petitioner to extend the benefit of 'Special Difficulty Procedure' and declare her passed the Indian School Certificate Examination (in short, 'ISCE') held in March, 2007.

(2.) THE Petitioner's case, shorn of unnecessary details, is that she was a student of Class -X and had secured very good marks in internal and practical examinations conducted by Opposite Party No. 2 during the academic year 2006 -07, but due to misfortune she suffered from jaundice and was bedridden from 26.02.2007 to 02.04.2007. During that period her father, who is her single parent, also fell seriously ill and had to undergo specialized treatment at Chennai from 09.12.2006 to 31.03.2007. In such unavoidable situation she could not sit in the final examination, which was held from 01.03.2007 to 26.3.2007. The father of the Petitioner requested the Council for the ISCE to consider the case of the Petitioner under the 'Special Difficulty Procedure' contemplated in Chapter -VI, Rule -1 and declare her passed, but Opposite Party No. 1 did not consider the same properly and arbitrarily rejected the same. The Petitioner then submitted a review application dated 12.6.2007 to Opposite Party No. 1 but Opposite Party No. 1 did not respond to the same. Since the academic year had already begun and the Petitioner was going to lose a precious year, she filed W.P.(C) No. 6812 of 2007 assailing the inaction of Opposite Party No. 1 and praying for a direction to Opposite Party No. 1 to declare her pass from Class -X. Opposite Party No. 1 contested that Writ Petition with a plea that the Petitioner does not come under 'Special Difficulty Procedure'. That Writ Petition was disposed of with the direction to Opposite Party No. 2 to fill up the form of the Petitioner and send the same along with necessary materials to the Council -Opposite Party No. 1 within one week. It was further directed that Opposite Party No. 1 would consider the same in consonance with Chapter -VI of the Rules dealing with Special Difficulty of Candidates and pass necessary orders in consonance with the guidelines or the Rules specified and to complete such exercise within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the form. It is alleged by the Petitioner that although in the said Writ Petition this Court remarked that it was a fit case for committee's consideration under 'Special Difficulty Procedure' and there is provision in Chapter -VI of the Rules that a candidate who is handicapped through whole of the examination can receive allowance in respect of more than one subject, Opposite Party No. 1 deliberately and arbitrarily rejected the representation of the Petitioner with the simple observation that Chapter -VI Rule 8(ii) prohibits extension of the benefit of 'Special Difficulty Procedure' to a student, who failed to take part in the examination set and evaluated by the council. According to the Petitioner, such decision of Opposite Party No. 1 noted in Annexure -1 is contrary to the direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 8612 of 2007, the provision of Chapter -VI of the Rules of Council for Conduct of Examination Center, and is tainted with ulterior aim to mar the career of the Petitioner and, therefore, the same should be quashed.

(3.) OPPOSITE Party No. 2 in his counter mentioned that pursuant to the direction of the Court in W.P.(C) No. 8612 of 2007, he forwarded the form along with the required information indicating specifically that the Petitioner's average mark in school tests was 79.9%. It was also mentioned that the decision having been taken by Opposite Party No. 1 and the allegation of the Petitioner being basically against Opposite Party No. 1, Opposite Party No. 2 has nothing more to say.