SUMAN Vs. BOARD OF SCHOOL EDUCATION HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Ms. Suman appeared in matriculation examination held by the Board of School Education Haryana (respondent No.1) and had passed the same in March, 1996. During 1996-97, she could not pursue her studies on account of certain domestic problem. In 1997-98, she approached M.S.Sarswati Senior Secondary School, Rohtak (respondent No.2). It is a recognised School. The petitioner's case is that she disclosed to the school that she had not passed 10+1 examination from any school. However, she was given regular admission. She pursued her studies for 10+2 examination. At the end of the academic year, she submitted the examination form as a regular student. She was allowed to appear in 10+2 examination. It had not been disclosed or mentioned in the examination form that passing of 10+1 examination is a pre-condition for appearing in 10+2 examination. She appeared in the 10+2 examination without any objection. However, her candidature in 10+2 examination was cancelled on the ground that she was eligible to take 10+2 examination because she has not passed 10+1 examination. The petitioner challenges the said action of respondent No.1 asserting that at no time she was told that passing of 10+1 examination from a recognised school is a necessary pre-condition. Had she been told, she would have applied under the Open School Scheme and passed the examination without any hurdle. She had not suppressed any fact. The syllabus under the Open School Scheme and the regular examination scheme is the same. Thus, it is asserted that the action of respondent No.1 in cancelling the candidature of the petitioner is arbitrary, illegal and should be quashed.

(2.) The ptition had been contested. In the reply filed by respondent No.1, it was pointed out that earlier the petitioner had filed a civil suit on the same cause of action which was dismissed by the Civil Judge, Rohtak. She had preferred an appeal which was also dismissed. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. As regards her eligibility to take 10+2 examination, it was pointed out that the petitioner had not passed the 11th class examination from any institution recognised by the respondent-Board. Therefore, she was not eligible to take 10+2 examination. It was further stated that the candidature of the petitioner could not be treated under the Open School Scheme because she appeared as a regular student and failed to satisfy the eligibility condition.

(3.) During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner highlighted the fact (a) the petitioner had never been told that there is eligibility condition for 10+2 examination, namely, that she should have passed 11th class from a recognised school ; and (b) had this fact been disclosed, she would have applied under the Open School Scheme in 10+2 examination. She had not suppressed any fact and the mistake, if any, was of respondent No.1. She was even allowed to take the examination.