SH PUNEET MATHUR Vs. BOARD OF SEC EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Sec. 115 CPC is directed against the order dated 14th September, 1992 of Addl. District Judge No. 1, Ajmer in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 23/92, whereby the order dated 1.4.92 passed by the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer City (East) on an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was confirmed. In brief, the facts are that the petitioner passed his 10th Class Examination (Secondary Examination) in the year 1990 from the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi. Thereafter he was admitted in 11th Class in Government Senior Higher Secondary School, Topdara, Ajmer, on the basis of his result in 10th Class. After getting admission he passed 11th Class as a regular student from the aforesaid school which is affiliated to the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan., Ajmer (respondent No.l). After passing 11th Class Examination, he took his admission in XII th Class and continued his studies as a regular student of the aforesaid school. Then he filled his Examination-Form after depositing the requisite fee through the aforesaid school but he was declined to appear in the Examination by the respondent-Board vide its communication dated April 2, 1992. The ground on which the petitioner was declined to appear in the examination was that he had not secured 33% marks in one of the subjects in Secondary Examination.

(2.) It appears that the petitioner has appeared in the Examination which was held on 2nd April, 1992 by the orders of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Ajmer. It is not disputed before me that the petitioner has appeared in the Examination. However his result was not declared and the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge No. 1, Ajmer on transfer of the appeal in his Court.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the case of the petitioner is at par with other students whose results were ordered to be declared by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1953/92 . Miss Shivani Kaur Vs. Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan Ajmer, 1992 2 WLC(Raj) 644) and other similar writ petitions. The learned counsel submits that the misfortune of the petitioner is that instead of approaching direct to this Court in a writ petition, he filed a civil suit, otherwise his fortune had been like similar other students whose result has beendeclared by the Board in pursuance to the judgment in the above writ petitions. The learned counsel also argued on merits and submitted that on the principle of estoppel, respondent is debarred from cancelling the admission of the petitioner. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent- Board vehemently submitted that no error of jurisdiction has been committed by the courts below in refusing to grant injunction in favour of the petitioner. Mr. Rastogi also submitted that simply because the petitioner had appeared in the examination by the orders of the Court, no equity or right is created in his favour. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that the above judgment cannot be precedent as the appeal is pending in the Division Bench against the said order.