MANTOSH SINGH Vs. HARYANA SCHOOL EDUCATION BOARD, BHIWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, Mantosh Singh through present writ filed by him under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash orders, annexures P-2 and P-5, vide which application sent by him for matriculation examination was rejected by observing that he had not shown in his application form the roll number and session of passing the Middle Standard Examination from the Haryana School Education Board, Bhiwani and that he should send the certified copy of the Middle Examination Certificate by showing the roll number and session/year of passing the said examination from the Board as also finally rejecting his application (annexure P-5) on the ground that he had not failed in the matriculation examination from the Haryana School Education Board, Bhiwani.

(2.) Brief facts of the case reveal that petitioner had passed his 8th and 9th classes from Holly Child School, Kurukshetra which is recognised by the Central Board of Secondary Education. He also appeared in 10th class of All India Secondary School Examination in the year 1992 but failed. Thereafter, he submitted his examination form for appearing in the matriculation examination under Board of School Education, Haryana and the last date for submitting the form was September 15, 1992. In the month of November, 1992, the Board informed him that he had not submitted the certificate of middle examination and, therefore, his examination had been cancelled. In wake of the cancellation of his examination, petitioner filed a detailed representation to the Secretary of Board of School Education, Haryana, Bhiwani. Alongwith the representation aforesaid, he attached certificate to show that he appeared in the All India Secondary School Examination in the year 1992 but was declared fail. He was, however, once again informed that since he was not declared fail by the Board of School Education, Haryana, so his examination form was to be rejected. It appears, as is also the case of petitioner, that impugned orders (annexures P-2 and P-5) were passed in view of eligibility criteria (annexure P-6) which debars the students who have passed middle examination from other Board. Petitioner for setting aside orders (P-2 and P-5) also challenges the eligibility criteria as spelled out in Annexure P-6, reference of which has been given above. Initially, the whole case was built on the ground that Annexure P-6, eligibility criteria came into being on June 25, 1992 and inasmuch as petitioner had cleared his 9th class examination from Holly Child School, Kurukshetra, which is a school recognised by the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi before that date, the same could not apply to him. However, after the written statement was filed, petitioner chose to file replication wherein it has been pleaded that under Section 19 of the Haryana Board of School Education Act, the Board has power to make regulations by issuing notification with the prior sanction of the State Government and inasmuch as the change of criteria as reflected in annexure P-6 amounted to change in the earlier regulations, the same necessarily required sanction of the State Government and could come into existence only by issuing a notification. Section 19 in so far as it is relevant, reads thus :-

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case, I am of the considered view that this petition deserves to succeed. It is not disputed that petitioner, as per the earlier eligibility criteria that was in existence prior to June 23, 1992, was eligible to appear in matriculation examination. It is also not disputed that the Board in exercise of its powers vested in it under Section 19 of the Act, can frame the rules and regulations for conducting matriculation examination. Section 19 of the Haryana Board of School Education Act, 1969 vests power with the Board to make regulations for carrying out the provisions of the Act but the same has to be done by way of notification and previous sanction of the State Government as is clearly made out from Section 19, reproduced above. Annexure P-6, which changes the earlier regulation i.e. Rule 8, has admittedly so far not been notified nor sanction of the State Government has been obtained. Insofar as Section 13, on which respondent relies, is concerned, the same vests power with the Board to conduct examinations for school education, admit to such examinations on the prescribed conditions, candidates who pursue the prescribed course of instruction, whether in recognised institutions or otherwise and demand and receive the prescribed fee, but the same has to be in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is from the provisions of the Act alone that the Board has been vested with the powers to make regulations. It is, thus, clear that till such time the earlier regulation, which has been made by a competent authority and in accordance with the prescribed procedure, is not changed by the same procedure, it will continue to operate. The plea of respondent that in an earlier writ this matter was taken and writ petition was dismissed, in any considered view, would not bind the petitioner of this case as admittedly in the earlier case this point was not even noticed by the Court. It is settled law that it is only the parties of a dispute which are bound by a decision and in case a particular point is raised but not decided, the same would not bind the other litigants in their own cause. The earlier decision would thus not operate as res judicata or as a precedent which might be relied upon by respondent as a binding precedent.