RANJIT KASHYAP Vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, three in number, applied for taking the 10 + 2 final examination in April, 1997. They appeared in the theory and practical groups of the paper "Introductory Computer Science" and passed the practical paper but failed in the theory paper. As per bye-law 42 of the Examination Bye-laws they were permitted two re-appear chances one to be taken in July/August, 1997 and second in March, 1998. They accordingly appeared in the re-appear examination in August, 1997 in the theory paper and once again failed. They also took their second chance in March, 1998 and it is the conceded position that petitioners No. 1 and 2 have since passed, whereas petitioner No. 3 has once again failed. The present petition, therefore, survives only with regard to petitioner No. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the re-appear examination of August, 1997 in the paper of "Introductory Computer Science" pertained to a course of study in the 'Pascal' computer language whereas in the paper taken in March, 1998 the said language had been changed with the result that the petitioner had not under gone a course study in that computer language and as such second chance for re-appear given to her was merely illusory.

(2.) On notice of motion, two replies had been filed, one by respondent No. 1, the Central Board of Secondary Education and other by respondent No. 3 the Principal, S.D. Public School, Sector 32, Chandigarh. In the reply filed by respondent No. 1 it has been pointed out that as per bye law 42 of the examination bye-laws a compartment candidate was given two chances to re-appear, one in August and the second in the month of March of the following year and that the examination paper for the compartment candidates in March examination would be the same as applicable to the regular candidates appearing in all the subjects at the said examination and as the petitioner was well aware of this stipulation as the same had also been reproduced in paragraph 3 of annexure R/l the application form that she had filled in for the purpose of taking the examination in March, 1998 she could not now turn around and make a challenge to the examination in question.

(3.) Mr. Rajiv Kateria, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two arguments before me, firstly that clause 3(iii) of bye law 42 of the examination bye laws was ultra vires being arbitrary and secondly as the course of study in the paper in question had been changed in 1998, the petitioner's success in the examination was well nigh impossible as she had not studied the new syllabi and course. As against this Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 has placed reliance on the aforesaid bye law and the instructions given in annexure R/l.