YADAV CHANDRA Vs. BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil second appeal has been referred to this Bench by a learned single Judge of this Court as the questions involved are of sufficient importance and is directed against the decision of the learned District Judge, Bikaner dated 1st July, 1959.

(2.) YADAV Chandra appellant was admitted in Jain High School, Bikaner in class IX on 26th July, 1957. He was to appear in the High School examination of the Rajasthan Secondary Board of Education which was to commence on 9th March, 1959. As the appellant's attendance fell short of the required quota fixed under the Rajasthan Secondary Board Education Regulations, 1957 (hereinafter called the Regulations) he was refused permission to present himself for the High School examination by the Board. It is not disputed that in the Academic years 1957, 1958-59 there were in all 358 working days in Classes IX and X. there is also no dispute that the appellant attended the school on 239. 5 days during these years. It is provided under Chapter XXIV Regulation 4 (i) that "a candidate cannot be presented for an examination of the Board by a recognised institution unless he has been present for at least 75 per cent of the days for which the institution was open during two academic years in Class IX and X in the case of High School examination. " The appellant's percentage thus calculated fell short by 29 days. It is further provided in Regulation 4 (iii) under the same Chapter that "in case of bona-fide illness supported by a medical certificate or certified by the head of institution from his personal knowledge or any other reason deemed sufficient by the Chairman if the total attendance of the student fell short of the required minimum attendance, the head of the recognised institution may condone deficiency of not more than six days. All such cases are to be reported to the Chairman of the Board. If the shortage in any case exceeds the above, the Chairman may in various circumstances condone a deficiency upto a limit of 20 days. " Inspite of this period of condonation, appellant would not have become eligible to sit at the examination as his deficiency exceeded the limit of 20 days.

(3.) AGAIN in Regulation 4 (ii) it has been provided that in case of intermediate examination candidates have atleast to be present in 75% of the lectures delivered in each subject and atleast 75% tutorial and practical work classes (taken together) held in each subject during two academic years in class XI and XII. Similarly in Regulation 4 (iii) it is provided that the Chairman of the Board may in various special circumstances condone a deficiency upto 6% of the lectures delivered and practical and tutorial done in each subject in the case of intermediate examination. In Regulation 4 (iv) also we find that a candidate appearing in the High School examination has also to be present at 75% of the periods devoted to physical training including the attendance and games to the extent of 15%. Regulation 4 (i) equally applies to those recognised institutions where studies are provided upto class XI and XII. If the provisions of Regulation 4 (ii), (iii) and (iv) were dependent on compliance of Regulation 4 (i) then attendance of the lectures or the periods as mentioned above would not have been necessary. The conclusion is therefore, irresistible that the obligation of the candidates to be present for atleast 75% of the days for which the institution remains open is not dependent upon the fulfilment of the condition mentioned in Regulation 4 (i) by the institution. In Regulation 4 (i) an obligation has been cast upon the institution to keep it open during one academical year for atleast 210 days. This may have been fixed for different considerations of educational needs but the candidates are hot absolved from their independent obligation to attend the school on 75% of the days on which the institution has actually remained open. We are, therefore, clear that Regulation 4 (i) and Regulation 4 (ii) are independent of each other and compliance of the latter is not dependent on the compliance of the former.