R. A. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners-two School Managements have preferred these petitions on 28 for a direction that the respondent-Board be directed to accept the forms of the students of the petitionersschools for the New S. S. C. Examination (old and new courses) commencing on 1 and to permit the students to appear at the examination. ( 2 ) APART from the fact that the petitions are very late and filed at a last moment such direction is likely to result into great and unsurmountable practical difficulties. ( 3 ) FOR the examination commencing on 1-12-1980 the process has started from September 1986 and the forms were to be submitted by 10-10-1986. It appears that the forms were submitted on 22-10-1986. The say of the petitioners that the forms were submitted earlier does not get corroboration from the Demand Draft. The Demand Drafts are dated 22-10-1986 and the payment was to be made by Demand Draft only. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted the following grounds against the rejection of the forms. (I) No specific last date is mentioned by the Board and even if such date was mentioned students are not aware of such dates. (II) There is no fault of the students. (III) Moreover even after 15-10-86 forms have been accepted this time and even on 22-10-1986 some forms have been accepted and there is discrimination against these schools. (IV) In respect of Aroma School forms of some students have been accepted even after 22-10-1986 and the numbers have been given to such students. (V) The Demand Draft of the examination fee was returned only on 27 and the order was communicated late and therefore the Board is estopped at the last moment from excluding these students (VI) The filing of the caveat by the Board in these cases on 22-11-1986 is unusual for a public body like the respondent-Board and filing of such caveat is said to be malafide. (VII) The interest of the students is paramount and the Court should try to promote such paramount interest. (VII) The interest of the students is paramount and the Court should try to promote such paramount interest. ( 5 ) BEFORE going into the merits of the contentions various possibilities and alternatives to see that these students and such other students of other schools can be examined were ascertained and after considerable and serious discussion it was found that it was not possible to examine these students at the examination commencing on 1-12-1986. However at the suggestion of the Court the Chairman of the respondent-Board had assured that the Board can consider as a special case without creating a precedent for future to hold a supplementary and separate examination for such students of these two schools and other schools who are late in sending the forms provided the Managements of the schools agree to bear the entire actual expenses of holding the examination without passing the burden on the students on behalf of the two Manage 516 ments it was submitted that in the interest of the students they are prepared to bear only reasonable expenses and they are prepared to suffer some kind of pumishment for their fault with a view to see that the interest of the students is safeguarded. I hope that this arrangement will be possible to work out and it is made clear that this will not be treated as a precedent for the future. ( 6 ) ON merits I do not find any substance in any of the contentions. In the affidavit-in-reply it has been explained and further elaborated at the hearing by the Chairman who has personally conducted the matter that in such a large examination which is spread over the entire State covering thousands of schools and hundreds of centres it is absolutely necessary to rigidly follow the schedule for the examination and right from the seat numbers of students subjects centres schools subjects of each student papers of each subject in each centre are subject to computarisation. The papers are printed outside the State and packed in a sealed manner for each subject in respect of each centre and any deviation from the said schedule and procedure is not only likely to result into practical difficulties but also in upsetting and disturbing the examination of thou sands of students. The papers are printed outside the State and packed in a sealed manner for each subject in respect of each centre and any deviation from the said schedule and procedure is not only likely to result into practical difficulties but also in upsetting and disturbing the examination of thou sands of students. ( 7 ) IT is also pointed out that this is October/november examination of Standard X and even if these students pass in this examination they can get admission to Standard XI only in the next academic year commencing from June 1987 alongwith the students who will be appearing in the March/april 1987 examination. Therefore these students if they are not allowed to appear at the examination they will not be losing any year of their academic career. On behalf of the petitioners the learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that these students if they appear in this examination would have got another examination to appear in April 1987 in such subject in which they do not get exemptions. This is too small a consideration for directing these students to appear at the examination commencing from 1-12-1996. ( 8 ) THE examination schedule is notified well in advance by sufficient public notice and it is impossible to believe that the students are not aware of the last date of filing of the forms. In the present case it is true that the students are not at fault. The fault lies with the Management in not submitting the forms in time. But it cannot be said that there is no last date fixed for sending the forms. If there is no last date till the date of the examinnation then the forms submitted to the Board even till the date of the examination will have to be accepted by the Board. Such is not the case. In the present case as per the Circular the last date was fixed and even as per the averments in the petitions it is next the case of the petitioners that there was no last date. Such is not the case. In the present case as per the Circular the last date was fixed and even as per the averments in the petitions it is next the case of the petitioners that there was no last date. ( 9 ) IT is submitted that even after 15 the Board has accepted the forms this time and even on 22-10-1986 the Board has accepted the forms and there is discrimination against these schools for not accepting their forms even though they are submitted on 22 In the affidavit-in-reply it has been pointed out that till the computer programme was started the forms were accepted and thereafter no form has been accepted from any school. On behalf of the petitioners it is pointed out that in case of about 9 students of Aroma School their names have been included even after 22-10-86. On behalf of the Board it has been clarified that their names were not 517 there originally and their forms were not accepted. Even then Aroma School had written correction slip including the names of these 9 students (even though their forms were not accepted) and therefore in the computerisation correction slip effected inclusion of the names of these students. However their names have been deleted. ( 10 ) IT is also pointed out that apart from these two schools there are other schools one in Jamnagar which has submitted the forms later and their names are also not included. It is submitted on behalf of the Board that the Board is conducting examination of lakhs of students from thousands of schools in hundreds of centres and if students and schools of different centres are directed to be included it would create chaos in holding of the examination preparation of their assessment and result and therefore such direction ought not to be issued particularly in view of the fact that this petition is filed almost on the last day. It is also submitted that even if petition was filed a few days earlier it would not have been possible to permit these students to appear at the examination. It is also submitted that even if petition was filed a few days earlier it would not have been possible to permit these students to appear at the examination. ( 11 ) ON behalf of the petitioners it is submitted that the Demand Draft of the examination fees was returned on 29 and also the intimation not accepting the form was communicated on that day and therefore this petition is filed immediately thereafter and there is no delay and the Board is estopped from excluding these students at such late hour. It is not possible to accept this contention because the forms were actually and physically returned on 24 and therefore there was no hope or promise that their names would be included in the forthcoming examination. The petitioners were fully aware that these forms are returned by the Board and they are lying with the Management. Even the caveat has been filed on 26-11-1986. Therefore it is not correct to say that till 27-11-1986 the petitioners were hoping to 11ave these students included in the examination. ( 12 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the action of the respondent-Board of filing caveat is unusual and smacks of mala fide. There is no merit whatsoever in this contention. Every litigant has a right to file a caveat and a vigilant litigant cannot be said to be acting malafide and having regard to the fact that had any exparte order been passed in his case having regard to the shortness of time) perhaps there would have been innumerable and unsurmountable practical difficulties and some chaos in holding of such large public examination of nearly a lakh of students. When such is the stake involved for the Board it is right that the Board has taken care to file the caveat and assist the Cour in time. ( 13 ) IN the result there is no illegality nor discrimination nor arbitrariness in the action of the respondentboard. Hence the petitions fall and are dismissed with the observations made earlier. Liberty to either party to apply in case of difficulty. Petition dismissed. .