JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner, Durga Lal Saini, appeared in the Secondary School Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan. Ajmer (herein-after referred to as the Board'), in 1988. The petitioner has made grievance in the writ petition regarding Compulsory English, First paper-'Comprehension' and 'Vocabulary', carrying 50 marks in total, section-A deals with the vocabulary, having 15 marks whereas Section-B is in regard to 'comprehension', carries 35 marks. This paper is almost on objective type, and after answering the paper, it is collected back by the Invigilators. The petitioner, in his writ petition has quoted passage from the paper (unseen passage), on the basis of which ten questions from Serial No. 57 to 67 were asked, and each question was allotted one mark. Petitioner has complained that the aforesaid passage comprised of many difficult words' like 'retrenchment', 'compensation', 'disputes', 'unionisation', 'earth-moving', winds' etc. which are beyond the range of secondary school students' vocabulary, they being very highly technical words, not mentioned in the book 'List of Essential Words and Structures' for Secondary School Classes (English Compulsory), issued by the Board and the meaning of these words could not be followed and understood by the petitioner and other like students, who appeared for the aforesaid examination Petitioner has also pointed out some mistakes in the passage regarding the construction of sentence and phrases. 2. It has further been pointed out that Question Nos. 58 and 65 are not happily worded and there are some grammatical composition mistakes which created confusion in the minds of the students. 3. Petitioner has also quoted a passage from the "Course Reader" appearing in the aforesaid paper on which Question Nos. 41 to 49 are based. He has submitted that Question Nos. 43 and 44 are not happily worded; there is mistake in the construction of the sentence which creates confusion in the minds of the examinees. He has further submitted that answers to Question Nos. 46 and 49 are not available in the said passage i.e. beyond the passage quoted to the paper. 4. Petitioner has further stated that Question No. 50 also does not have its answer in passage-A on which it is based; so also question No. 53 is not very clear and because of wrong construction of sentence, the students have been misled, and so also Question No. 53 based on passage 'C'. 5. 4. Petitioner has further stated that Question No. 50 also does not have its answer in passage-A on which it is based; so also question No. 53 is not very clear and because of wrong construction of sentence, the students have been misled, and so also Question No. 53 based on passage 'C'. 5. Petitioner's counsel has therefore submitted that in view of the mistakes and anamolies in the question paper, the students are likely to suffer adversely and they will not get marks as they ought to have obtained and their career will be prejudiced, 6. This writ petition was filed in this Court on 6.6.1988 and it came up before me on 8th June, 1988. Notices of three days' duration were ordered to be issued to the Board as to why the writ petition should not be admitted and disposed of, Meanwhile, it was directed that the result of the examination should not be declared. It was listed for admission and final disposal on 13.6 88. 7. The Board has filed reply to the show cause notice to which a rejoinder has also been filed by the petitioner. Arguments were heard on 13th June, 1988 as also on 14.6.88. 8. The Board, in its reply. has taken some preliminary objections viz., that the writ petition should be dismissed on account of delay as the examinations for the paper in question took place on 24th March, 1988 and nearly 3.4. lacs students have appeared in the said examination but none of the students have made any grievance, whatsoever, of any nature, with regard to the said paper. Nor even the petitioner has brought to the notice of the Board about those alleged mistakes in the question paper and just on the eve of declaration of the result of examination, this writ petition has been filed. It has further been objected on behalf of the Board that the present writ petition cannot be said to be public interest litigation or cannot be said to be in the representative capacity on behalf of all the students who appeared in the examination any by securing the stay order from this Court, the petitioner has caused a serious prejudice to other students who appeared in the examination. 9. It has further been submitted that on the one hand, the petitioner is complaining that the passages contained difficult words like 'retrenchment', 'earth-moving' etc. 9. It has further been submitted that on the one hand, the petitioner is complaining that the passages contained difficult words like 'retrenchment', 'earth-moving' etc. beyond the reach of vocabulary of the students of secondary class, while on the other hand, he has reproduced the passage verbatim, based on his memory which is not possible. Since the question paper is collected by the Invigilators immediately after answering by the examinee the petitioner could not have reproduced the passage verbatim and petitioner has been able to procure this passage from some other source, and thus, he has not come with clean hands. In the reply, it has further been asserted that the petitioner had appeared in the year 1987 also but had failed in all the subjects, which shows that he is not a talented and brilliant student having such a wonderful memory. It has further been submitted that this Court should not interfere in its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. with regard to academic institutions like the Board and Universities as the Board is the final authority in such matters. 10. While replying to the merits of the case also, it has been submitted that even if there are some mistakes of grammer or in the construction of sentences, it has not prejudiced the case of the students in general and particularly of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the Board showed to me the answer book of the petitioner in support of his contention. 11. In the end, learned counsel for the Board submitted that this Court sitting in vacations, should not dispose of such matters finally and the Board has no objection in the general stay is vacated and a stay order is granted with regard to the petitioner alone. In this connection, he drew my attention to (1) Rameshwar Prasad Vyas and another v. Director, Primary and Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner and others (AIR 1971 Rajasthan 75) . I have carefully gone through this authority and it does not govern the present case. In this connection, he drew my attention to (1) Rameshwar Prasad Vyas and another v. Director, Primary and Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner and others (AIR 1971 Rajasthan 75) . I have carefully gone through this authority and it does not govern the present case. In the above case, two special appeals against the judgment of the learned Single Judge were laid before the Vacation Judge, for admission and there a question was raised about the power of the Vacation Judge, to entertain special appeal against the judgment of the Single Judge and in that case, it was observed that a Vacation Judge cannot hear special appeal u/Rule 63 though he can admit such appeal and under the inherent jurisdiction, make interim orders in view of Rule 63 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules. Rule 63 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules is very clear on the subject and authorises Vacation Judge to exercise jurisdiction even in cases which are, under the Rules. cognizable by two or more Judges. Recently, in D.B Civil Writ Petition No 25/83 M/s. J. K. Synthetics V. Kota Municipal Council , when an application for modification of the stay order came up before me. I thought it proper that the same should be heard by the Division Bench which had passed the stay order, and therefore, the file was placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for necessary orders. Hon'ble the Chief Justice ordered that the matter should be heard by the Vacation Judge and he may pass appropriate orders judicially as he deems fit. Moreover, observations in Rameshwar Prasad Vyas's case (supra) are not applicable as they were made in a different context altogether. 12. Thus, the objection raised on behalf of the Board that Vacation Judge has no power to decide the present case, is over-ruled as it has no legs to stand. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply to the oral arguments of the learned counsel for the Board, submitted that it is not necessary to give notice of demand for justice if the opposite party is already aware of the illegality and in this connection, he has placed reliance on (2) Gopal Lal Swarnkar V. Director of NCC Rajasthan, Jaipur (1972 W.L.N. 687) . Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on (3) B. Prabbakar Rao and others v. State of A.P. and others, (1985 (Supplement) SCC 432) and has submitted that even if some affected parties have not been impleaded before the Court, and if their interests are identical with those and have been sufficiently and well represented and the relief claimed is of a general nature and not against any individual party, mete failure to imp lead all the affected parties is not a bar to the maintainability of the writ petition. 14. He has further submitted that technicalities should not hamper the administration of justice for which the Court exists and has placed reliance on (4) Gulab Chand v. University of Jodhpur, (1985 WLN (UC) 8) . 15. With regard to the delay and laches, learred counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on (5) Mahant Ram Swaruop v. State of Rajasthan & others (1986 R. L. R. 267) , wherein it has been observed that the question of delay does not arise where a writ of prohibition is asked for. He has also placed reliance on (6) Prakash Chandra Kasliwal v. Union of India ( 1986 RLR 492 ) , wherein it has been observed that if the action complained of is ab initio void, illegal and without jurisdiction, the objection regarding delay cannot be sustained. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the famous case of (7) M.C. Mehta and another v. Union of India ( 1987 (I) SCC 395 ) wherein it has been held that it well be open for the court to accept even a letter addressed to the Court and to treat the same as a writ petition, in a also of public interest litigation and since it is not possible to implead or have any proper representation of 3.4 lacs students, this writ petition should be treated as public interest litigation on behalf of and in the interest of all the examinees who appeared in the secondary school examination In this connection. he has placed reliance on (8) K.I. Shephered v. Union of India (1987 (3) SVLR (L) 279) . 17. he has placed reliance on (8) K.I. Shephered v. Union of India (1987 (3) SVLR (L) 279) . 17. Learned counsel for the Board has very vehemently placed reliance on the observations of the Supreme Court in (9) Principal, Patna College V. K.S. Raman ( AIR 1966 SC 707 ) , where their lordships observed that High Court should normally be very slow to interfere into the matters relating to the orders passed by the authorities of educational institutions and the matter should be left to the decision of the educational authorities; and the High Court should interfere only when it thinks that it must do so in the interest of justice. 18. He has further placed reliance on (10) Maharashtra State Board of Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh, ( AIR 1984 SC 1543 ) where also, the Supreme Court has observed that courts should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise prudent and proper, in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day to day working of educational institutions and the Department controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded. It is equally important that the Court should also, as far as possible, avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or bye-law which would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable in practice. 19. Learned counsel for the Board has also brought to my notice that one Mr. Manik Lal C. Agrawal, who had worked as Co-examiner and Additional Head Examiner of the Board and is still associated with the Board, brought a similar writ petition being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1028/88 Manik C. Agrawal v. The Secretary, Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan, Ajmer and another relating to similar mistakes in the compulsory English First Paper of secondary School Examination, 1988 and pointed out some mistakes, as has been done in the present writ petition. He prayed that the result of the said examination in Compulsory English First Paper be cancelled and the same may be reconducted, or to award 21 grace marks to each and every examinee, irrespective of the fact whether he or she had attempted the questions in which there were mistakes pointed out and further making ancilliary prayers with which we are not concerned. The aforesaid writ petition has been dismissed by this Court vide its order dated 25. 4. 1988 with the following observations : "This petition has been filed by the petitioner by way of a public interest litigation wherein the petitioner has made grievance with regard to setting of paper of Compulsory English of the Secondary Examination. 1988 conducted by the Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan, Ajmer. We have heard the petitioner who is present in person. In our opinion, this is not one of those matters which should be considered by the court as a public interest litigation If any student has a grievance about setting of the said paper he can challenge the same by way of filing separate writ petition. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed summarily". 20. It is only after dismissal of writ petition filed by Shri Manik C. Agrawal, that the present writ petition has been got filed and therefore, it has been filed bona fide but with an ulterior object and at the instance of Shri Manik C. Agrawal. 21. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the whole matter and have carefully gone through the writ petition as also the reply and the various authorities cited before me. 22. As regards the preliminary objections. I have already observed that sitting as a Vacation Judge, myself is competent to hear and decide this writ petition Similarly the other preliminary objection with regard to delay or latches has no force It is true that examination of Compulsory English First Paper was held on 24th March, 1988 and petitioner and other students. if any who felt aggrieved, should have made a representation to the Board bringing to its notice the obvious mistakes but merely because the same was not done, we cannot throw away the writ petition on this ground alone, specially when after examining the contentions of the parties, on merits, I find that there is some substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. The writ petition cannot he thrown merely on technicalities. We are here to do justice and such technicalities should not come in the way when the court feels that some prejudice or injustice has been caused to the petitioner and he is likely to suffer an irreparable loss if he is not given the relief sought for. 23. Similarly, the other ground rasid by the Board that the petitioner has not come with clean hands as it was not possible for him to have reproduced the passage in question from the question paper only relating on his memory, is without any force. Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and the petitioner should come forward with clean hands but merely because the petitioner has not disclosed his source from where he reproduced the passage from the question paper in question, he cannot be said to have not come with clean hands. Shri Manik Chand Agrawal, as has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the Board, had filed a writ petition No. 1028/88 and alongwith that petition, be also submitted the original question paper of English and so, on this technical ground alone, the present writ petition cannot be dismissed. The teachers or the examiners of the Board or educational institutions who are examining the answer books/sheets are expected to act in a more sober manner and should approach the Board and its authorities only, rather than approaching this Court in such matters. 24. Now coming on merits. Having gone through the unseen passage of English Compulsory First Paper, I do find that it is not happily worded nor it seems to be in correct english, with proper grammar and there are number of glaring mistakes which are bound to create confusion in the mind of examinees who appear for secondary school examination rather than conveying the correct meaning to the students. It is not necessary that the petitioner should have been personally prejudiced. Even if his answers may be correct and may not have prejudiced but we are more concerned with what it will convey to 3-4 lacs students Who appeared in this compulsory paper. It is not necessary that the petitioner should have been personally prejudiced. Even if his answers may be correct and may not have prejudiced but we are more concerned with what it will convey to 3-4 lacs students Who appeared in this compulsory paper. The prejudice is inherent and obvious, It is true that the book giving 'List of Essential Words and Structures' for secondary school classes (English Compulsory) published by the Board is not exhaustive but is only by way of illustration and merely because the passage contains same words which are not mentioned in that book, it cannot be said that the passage in question is out of course or is likely to prejudice the Students in general but that does not mean that the unseen passage should not be understandable by the students of Class-X and should contain very high sounding and some newly coined words which are not commonly used, so as not to convey the correct and exact meaning but mislead and confuse the students. The Paper Setters should be conscious of the fact and cannot ignore that our mother language is Hindi and it is only with a view to acquaint the students with English that there is a compulsory subject of English language, and specially the first paper which is meant for comprehension and vocabulary. 25. Petitioner has complained particularly about Question No. 58 and 65 which are also not very happily worded and is a clear example of faulty English. There appears to be some mistake. It may be that it conveys the meaning what the paper setter wanted but at the same time, it is likely to confuse the examinees because it cannot be said to be correct English. The un-seen passage is itself a difficult one for understanding of a student of secondary standard, and coupled with the incorrect questions, make it all the more difficult. 26. Now coming to the second passage which has been quoted in the writ petition (from Course Reader Class-X). Learned counsel for the Board passed on the book 'Course Reader for Class-X', published by the Board, from where Passage-2 was quoted. This book contains Lessions-5 with the heading 'Black- wood House' which must have been copied or borrowed from some foreign book by English Author. The characters are also english people - Mr. Cooper and Mr. Norton. The currency used is also in pounds. This book contains Lessions-5 with the heading 'Black- wood House' which must have been copied or borrowed from some foreign book by English Author. The characters are also english people - Mr. Cooper and Mr. Norton. The currency used is also in pounds. I am really amazed and astonished and feel very sorry that inspite of our independence for the last 40 years, we have not been able to dispel hang-over of english men from our mind. In the Preface of the Book, learned authors had occasion to observe that the lessons touch upon the themes of emotional integration, environmental protection, population education; character building and patriotism besides inculcating moral values in the young minds. I fail to understand that why even in 1988, such a passage should at all exist in the course reader approved by the Board either because the authorities concerned do not devote time and proper attention before selecting the course readers or they are still under the influence of english people and think that unless their characters are english people,the students of independent India will not get the message of patriotism and emotional integration or character building. I strongly feel that the Board should be very careful and choosey in selecting the books in course. One can understand if Lesson-5 related to some history of some nation. Be that as it may, it is for the authorities concerned and sitting as a High Court Judge, I cannot issue any directions in this regard, except expressing my strong feelings on the subject. 27. Question Nos. 43 and 44 are bassed on this passage and there is an apparent mistake. The word 'who' appearing in both these questions cannot be said to be correct pronoun, in any sense of the term and is bound to mislead and confuse the average students of Class-X. The Examiners should be very cautious, careful, while setting papers and they should also see that there are no mistakes in the printing so as to avoid any prejudice and confusion to the students. 28. 28. With regard to Questions No. 46-49 learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the answer to the question must be based only on the information in the passage and not on what the student has learnt elsewhere and in this connection, he has drawn my attention to a book 'Exercises in Essential English', by Mahesh Chandra Sharma and Roshan Lal Gupta as also a book 'Further Comprension and Precis Pieces for Overseas students' by L.A. Hill and R.D.S. Fileden. The distionary meaning of the word 'comprehension' as given in 'Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Una- bridged is as under : 'Comprehension, faculty or capability of including .....the act or action of grasping with the intellect ...understanding. the resultant of comprehending mentally, appreceptive knowledge or knowing, capacity or power of the mind for understanding fully." 29. Be that as it may, it is not for this Court to devolve on this aspect of the matter. It is true that this passage is from the Course Reader which the student is supposed to have read during his studies throughout the year and is expected to have a background of the whole lesson No. 5 from which it has been quoted but it would have been better if the questions were confined, which arose from the passage or whose answer was available in the passage quoted in the paper itself. The same observations apply with regard to the Question No. 50- 57 arising out of passage A.B.C.D. 30. So looking the thing as a whole, I am of the view that the students have been prejudiced in general by the mistake, negligence on the part of the Board/Examiners (sic paper setter) who have set the paper and by the mistake in the printing or otherwise They should not suffer for no fault of their as it will ultimately affect their career as we find these days are days of competition and even one mark in their aggregate can sometimes cause great hardship to the students desiring for higher studies and who want to seek admission in a good educational institution. This Court ordinarily would not have interferred in such matters, but looking to the fact that the mistakes in the question paper were apparent and obvious and have prejudiced the cause of large number of students, this Court felt duty bound to come to the rescue of huge community of students in general. 31. Now coming to the question as to what relief should be granted in such matters. 32. I am of the opinion that if the result of whole English Compulsory, First Paper is struck down and the Board is directed to hold examination of this subject afresh, it will occasion a great hardship to all students for whose benefit the present writ petition has been filed and this will also cause a lot of expenses and botheration to the Board as well as to the students and also will further delay the declaration of the result of their examination which will be very harmful and prejudicial to the interests of the students who want to go for further higher studies. Therefore, it is not just and proper to annul the whole examination of Compulsory English-First Paper. The other way of giving some relief to the students is that some ad hoc grace marks should be awarded to each and every examinee. For that also. I do not think this Court is competent enough to fix the grace marks and direct the Board to give particular grace marks to each and every student. Courts should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is right, prudent and proper in relation to academic battery in preference to those formulated by professional men processing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day to day working of the education system. It is hoped that in future the Board will be more careful and choosey in selecting the Head Examiner and the Head Examiner will be all the more particular to see that such mistakes do not occur in future at the cost of numerous students. 33. It is hoped that in future the Board will be more careful and choosey in selecting the Head Examiner and the Head Examiner will be all the more particular to see that such mistakes do not occur in future at the cost of numerous students. 33. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer, is directed to examine the whole matter in the light of the observations made hereinabove, in consultation with the Results Committee or any other body competent in this regard, under the scheme and the law, to see as to how much grace marks should be awarded to each and every student so that they do not suffer for the negligence, carelessness and mistake on the part of the examiners (sic paper setter). This should be done at the earliest so as not to delay the declaration of the result. The Board should act very promptly and declare the result as soon as possible.Petition allowed. *******