Ram Yatan Singh v. State Of Bihar — 1974 DIGILAW 32 (PAT)

Judgment Madan Mohan Prasad, J. 1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ quashing orders by which petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 have not been allowed to sit at the secondary school examination conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board. 2. The first petitioner claims to be the proprietor, founder and headmaster of a school called Ram Nagina Singh Seminary situated at Nasriganj within Danapur Police Station, in. the district of Patna. The other two petitioners claim to be students of that school. Their case is that having finished their courses of study at the aforesaid school, they had made applications for being enrolled as candidates at the secondary school examination to be held in March, 1974 which is conducted by the Bihar School Exainitiation Board. They had filled up the necessary forms and paid necessary fees and had been registered as such candidates. This school was, however, not recognised by the Bihar Board of Secondary Education on a permanent footing. It used to receive recognition from year to year. It had been so recognised until the end of December, 1972. It used to receive Government aid also until that date. It appears, however, that a report (Annexure 1) was made to the Education Department by the District Education Officer that there was no such school in existence. This report led to an enquiry in respect of the matter which is said to be pending before the Board of Secondary Education. As a result of the report, however, the President of the Board of Secondary Education sent a notice to petitioner No. 1 to the effect that the students of that school would not be allowed to appear in the examination, a copy of which is Annexure 2. On the basis of the aforesaid order, the Secretary of the Bihar School Examination Board sent an order (Annexure 3) to petitioner No. 1, the headmaster, saying that application of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 were returned since it was not possible under the rules to accept them and asked that the two petitioners be informed thereof. The present application is, therefore, for quashing of the orders contained in Annexures 2 and 3. 3. 2 and 3 were returned since it was not possible under the rules to accept them and asked that the two petitioners be informed thereof. The present application is, therefore, for quashing of the orders contained in Annexures 2 and 3. 3. By a supplementary affidavit petitioners have stated that the fact that there was no such school in existence is incorrect and in this respect the Secretary of the school had filed a rejoinder before the Board of Secondary Education and the matter is still pending and no final decision has been taken up by the Board. The complete list of the students whose forms and fees had been sent has also been attached to this petition as Annexure 4. 4. Counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 5. These five respondents have, amongst other things, stated that the school was recognised only up to 31st of December, 1972 and that no application had been made for the recognition of the school for the year 1973 and the school was, therefore, not recognised during the year. It is further said that in view of the reports made by officers of the Education Department it was found that there was no such school in existence in the year 1973 and the question of recognition of such a school in that year did not arise. It is said that the forms which had been filled up by these students were based on their claim that they had passed the test examination of that school, and the school being not in existence or at least not being recognised, they could not legally be permitted to appear in the examination as regular students. They say that the Examination Board had no knowledge as to whether this school was functioning or not and, therefore, they had accepted the registration fees and the examination forms of the students concerned, but when the fact was made known to them the Examination Board rightly disallowed petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 from appearing at the examination to be held in March, 1974. It is said that there was another enquiry also made on the 1st of February, 1974 by the District Education Officer and the Subdivisional Education Officer with regard to the existence of the school, but no such school was found to exist. 5. 2 and 3 from appearing at the examination to be held in March, 1974. It is said that there was another enquiry also made on the 1st of February, 1974 by the District Education Officer and the Subdivisional Education Officer with regard to the existence of the school, but no such school was found to exist. 5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 6 in which it is stated that the application forms of eleven candidates had been received from this school for the annual secondary school examination of 1974 and of these only petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 had been sent up as regular candidates, the remaining ones being ex-regular candiates i.e. they had appeared at the examination held in 1973 and failed. It is said that the Board of Secondary Education being the authority entitled to grant or withdraw recognition and they having passed the order to the effect that the school was not recognised and not in existence, the Examination Board acted rightly in returning the forms of the two petitioners. It is further said that the other nine candidates having been sent up by the school at a time when it was recognised and having failed at that examination were entitled to appear at the next examination and therefore the examination Board had asked for the counter-signature on their applications of the District Education Officer but returned the forms of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended firstly, that the petitioners could not be debarred from sitting at the examination once they had been registered as candidates for the aforesaid examination, secondly, that the order violated the principles of natural justice inasmuch as petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 were not given any hearing, and, thirdly, that the order is discriminatory inasmuch as the other nine candidates mentioned in Annexure 4 have been allowed to sit at the examination but petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are not so allowed. 7. With regard to the first point, learned counsel has not been able to place before me any material which would show that once applications of the candidates were registered they had ,a right to appear at the examination, irrespective of any other consideration and that the Examination Board could not stop them from appearing at the examination. 7. With regard to the first point, learned counsel has not been able to place before me any material which would show that once applications of the candidates were registered they had ,a right to appear at the examination, irrespective of any other consideration and that the Examination Board could not stop them from appearing at the examination. The registration receipts were produced during the course of hearing and they show that it is specifically mentioned at the top that they are provisional. That itself obviously means that they were registered as such subject to a final decision on the question as to whether they were entitled to appear at the examination. It would obviously not create any absolute right in the two petitioners to sit at the examination. 8. In the present case it appears that a complaint was made to the Board of Secondary Education in March 1973, as a result of which the Board directed an enquiry into the matter in April, 1973 and the report of the District Education Officer was made in May, 1973 and according to the officers who made the enquiry there was no such school in existence. Be that as it may, it is not the case of the petitioners, assuming that the school was in existence, that the school was recognised for the year 1973. The result is that the two petitioners could not be deemed to be regular student who could be sent up by the school for the aforesaid examination. A reference to the definition of High School contained in Sec.2 of the Bihar High Schools (Control & Regulation of Administration) Act, 1960 will show that the aforesaid term means "a recognised school imparting instruction in secondary or higher secondary education." The term recognised has also been defined in clause (d) of Sec.2 aforesaid to mean recognised by the Board (of Secondary Education) under Sec. 4. Clause (d) of Sec.2 of the Bihar School Examination Board Act, 1952 (Bihar Act 7 of 1952) will show that the term high school means a recognised school or department of a recognised school imparting instruction in secondary education and recognised as such. This Act was passed to establish the School Examination Board in the State of Bihar. Clause (d) of Sec.2 of the Bihar School Examination Board Act, 1952 (Bihar Act 7 of 1952) will show that the term high school means a recognised school or department of a recognised school imparting instruction in secondary education and recognised as such. This Act was passed to establish the School Examination Board in the State of Bihar. Under Sec.16 of this Act the State Government has been given the power to make rules and under Sec.17 the Examination Board has been empowered to make regulations to provide for the matters contained therein including the conditions under which students shall be admitted to the examinations of the Board. The Board has framed regulations which are contained in notification of the Government dated 8th of May, 1967. They are called the Bihar School Examination Board Regulations, 1964. It will appear from Regulation 2 in Chapter IV that the candidates who are eligible to be sent up for the examination of the Board are: "(a) The candidate who has attended a regular course of study in the topmost class in one or more high or higher secondary classes for at least one session immediately preceding the examination in which he intends to appear and whose record of work and conduct are assessed to be satisfactory and has been found fit for being sent up, (b) The candidate who has failed at the examination of the Board or could not appear therein after having been sent up and has not joined any High School or Higher Secondary School on the production of a certificate of (i) good conduct and (ii) diligent and regular study from the headmaster or from the Principal of the School last attended by him." Regulation 3 under Chapter IV lays down the eligibilty of private candidates for Secondary School Examination. A candidate who has not attended any recognised High School or Higher Secondary School as pupil at any time during one year immediately preceding the examination in which he wants to appear may be admitted to the Boards Secondary School examination as a private candidate. A candidate who has not attended any recognised High School or Higher Secondary School as pupil at any time during one year immediately preceding the examination in which he wants to appear may be admitted to the Boards Secondary School examination as a private candidate. It will next appear that Regulation 1 of Chapter IV relates to the eligibility of school and it lays down that subject to such conditions as may be specified by the Board from time to time, every recognised High School or Higher Secondary School in the State of Bihar shall be eligible to send up candidates for the Boards Secondary School or Higher Secondary School Examination as the case may be. It will thus appear, reading these provisions as a whole that it is obvious that unless the school has been recognised by the Board of Secondary Education, it cannot send up candidates for the Boards Secondary School Examination. Those who have not attended any recognised high school may appear as private candidates. The first kind are thus called regular student and the second private candidates. There1 is a definition in Sec.3 (k) of these regulations in Chapter I of a regular student which says that it means "a student who has pursued a course of study prescribed by the Board in an institution or institutions recognised as such". It is not disputed that the right to recognise institutions is that of the Board of Secondary Education as prescribed in Sec. 4 of the Bihar High Schools (Control and Regulation of Administration) Act, 1960. It is thus obvious that petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 not having been students of any recognised school in the year 1973, in view of the admitted position that the aforesaid school was not recognised for the year 1973, could not be deemed to be regular students within the meaning of the term aforesaid and the school did not have the right to send them up for the examination. In other words, petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 were not eligible to appear at the examination as regular students of the school aforesaid. That being so the order passed by the Board of Secondary Examination as also by the School Examination Board cannot be said to be illegal. In other words, petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 were not eligible to appear at the examination as regular students of the school aforesaid. That being so the order passed by the Board of Secondary Examination as also by the School Examination Board cannot be said to be illegal. 9 The mere fact that they were provisionally registered as such candidates does not give them any right to insist, as has been done by the counsel, that irrespective of the question of recognition of the school which had sent up these petitioners, they had acquired a right to appear at the examination and that the two Boards had no more right left in them to return the application forms and not to allow them to appear at the examination aforesaid. The first contention of learned counsel is, thus absolutely untenable. 10. In view of the fact that the two petitioners have not been able to make out a case of any legal right in them which has been violated, the question as to whether there has been a denial of the principles of natural justice is of no consequence. In the circumstance of the present case, the question does not even arise. The examination aforesaid is to be held in March, 1974. It appears that long before the examination, by the aforesaid Annexures 2 and 3 dated 6th December, 1973 and 15th December, 1973 it was communicated to the Secretary of the School and the headmaster thereof who appears to be the petitioner No. 1 that the students of this school could not be allowed to appear at the examination and that they may be informed. It is not stated that any of these petitioners made any representation either to the Board of Secondary Education or the Examination Board in this respect. Instead they came up to this court. If they had made any such representation against the order aforesaid the question of giving them a hearing could be said to have arisen. There cannot be said to be any prejudice to these petitioners assuming that they had a right to be heard, in view of the fact that even today it is not stated that this school had been recognised for the year 1973. The whole question depends upon the recognition of the school. There cannot be said to be any prejudice to these petitioners assuming that they had a right to be heard, in view of the fact that even today it is not stated that this school had been recognised for the year 1973. The whole question depends upon the recognition of the school. In absence of any dispute on the point the question of these petitioners being heard by the Board aforesaid before coming to the decision on the question as to whether the students of this school could appear in the examination is immaterial. 11. The last contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is equally without any substance. It has been made clear by the counter-affidavit and the fact is not denied that the other students mentioned in the list (Annexure 4) were ex-students, namely, those who had been sent up by the school in the year 1972 at a time when it was so recognised and who had failed at the Secondary School Examination held in the year 1973. It will appear from the definition of "ex-student" given in Clause (!) of Regulation 3 under Chapter I of the aforesaid regulations that it means "a student who appeared at the Board Examination from a recognised school as a regular course student, but failed, or a student who after being sent up could not appear at the examination for valid reasons. The other students thus had acquired the right to appear at the examination of 1974 irrespective of the question as to whether the school was recognised during the year 1973 or not, they having been sent up at a time when the school was so recognised. There is thus no discrimination at all as alleged by the petitioners. 12. It appears from the reports of the inquiring officers, portion of which was read out to me by learned counsel appearing for the School Examination Board and the Board of Secondary Education that petitioner No. 1 had been carrying the school in his pocket moving from place to place. True, the truth of this allegation has been denied. In any case, it is clear that it was the conduct of petitioner No. 1 which has resulted in a loss to the other two petitioners. True, the truth of this allegation has been denied. In any case, it is clear that it was the conduct of petitioner No. 1 which has resulted in a loss to the other two petitioners. He certainly knew that the school was not a recognised one and he should have at least told the other petitioners that they would not be eligible to sit at the examination in view of non-recognition of the school unless all the three petitioners were in collusion with each other. 13. In the result, I would dismiss this application and direct the petitioner No. 1 alone shall pay a cost of Rs. 100.00 to the respondents.