Anwar Ali v. State of Rajasthan — 1999 DIGILAW 1403 (RAJ)

Honble SHETHNA, J.–The petitioner Anwar Ali is a father of his minor daughter Shabnam, has filed this petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and prayed that the respondent No.2, Secondary Board of Education, be directed to grant permission to his daughter Shabnam to persue her studies in 11th Standard in Commerce with an optional subject of Mathematics in Respondent No.3 School-Rajkiya Balika Uchch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Pali. (2). It is also prayed by the petitioner in this petition that the Guidelines issued by the Secondary Board of Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer-respondent No.2 at Item No.3 in Chapter 3 (Annex.A/3), giving permission to those students coming on transfer on the self-study basis, be struck down, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (3). Shabnam was studying in respondent No.3-School upto 10th Standard with Urdu as an optional subject on self-study basis as there was no teacher teaching Urdu subject in that School. She has passed 10th Standard Examination with flying colours in First Class and, in ``Urdu subject, she got 62+9, total 71 mar-ks, on self-study basis. She got her admission in 11th Standard, i.e., Senior Secondary in the respondent No.3-school itself in Commerce with an optional subject of Mathematics on the self-study basis as the subject of Mathematics was not taught in the respondent No.3-School. (4). Chapter 19 of Hand Book published by the respondent-Secondary Board Education, Rajasthan provides for Senior Secondary (Academic) Examination. According to para 2 of the said Chapter 19, for appearing in the Examination, following subjects being compulsory as well as optional subjects, are required to be taken by a student as prescribed in the respective 5 streams: (i) Arts; (ii) Science; (iii) Commerce; (iv) Agriculture; (v) Home Science. Compulsory subjects are Hindi and English. In Commerce stream, there are, in all, 7 optional subjects:- (i) Accounts (Compulsory); (ii) Business Organisation (Compulsory); (iii) Maths. & Statistics; (iv) Economic Administration and Financial Administration; (v) Hindi Shorthand and Typing; (vi) English Shorthand and Typing; (vii) Typing Hindi & English; (5). Out of above 7 optional subjects in Commerce stream, a student has to take any three subjects, but in that optional subject also, subject No.(i) Accounts and subject No.(ii) Business Organisation are compulsory. Thus, out of the remaining 5 optional subjects, a student has to choose any one of them as third optional subject. Out of above 7 optional subjects in Commerce stream, a student has to take any three subjects, but in that optional subject also, subject No.(i) Accounts and subject No.(ii) Business Organisation are compulsory. Thus, out of the remaining 5 optional subjects, a student has to choose any one of them as third optional subject. Accordingly, Shabnam opted for the optional subject of Mathematics alongwith the subjects (i) Accounts; and (ii) Business Organisation. Similarly, two other girls (1) Meesa and (2) Apexa Raja, studying in the same Standard, i.e., 11th B, alongwith Shabnam, opted for optional subjects of Mathematics and English respectively, whereas the 4th girl Garima Sharma, studying in 12th B of the respon-dent No.3-School, opted for typing subject as an optional subject. It appears from the letter dated 18.8.1989 addressed by the respondent No.3-School to the Secretary of the Respondent No.2-Board that all those 4 girls passed the Secondary Examination in Ist Division, but they wanted to study in 11th Standard with the optional subjects of Business Organisation, Accounts and Mathematics. In that letter, the Principal asked the Secretary of the Board as to whether they can study in 11th Standard with the subject of Economics instead of Maths on self-study basis and would Board grant permission for that to appear in the Examination. Thus, Respondent No. 3 -School insisted that Shabnam should take optional subject of Economics instead of Mathematics. (6). Respondent No.2 Board replied the same on 25.8.1989 (Annex.5) and stated that with reference to the application in connection with the self-study basis, the Principal of School should forward the entire matter alongwith the transfer order of the parents, transfer of the student and also the proof that the subject desired by the student is not being taught in any of the school in the city concerned, it is only then the grant for permission on self-study basis will become possible. (7). The Principal of the Respondent No.3-School once again wrote a letter dated 2.9.1989 (Annex.6) to the Secretary of the Board to grant permission to all the four students, including Shabnam who wanted to persue their studies on the self-study basis. (7). The Principal of the Respondent No.3-School once again wrote a letter dated 2.9.1989 (Annex.6) to the Secretary of the Board to grant permission to all the four students, including Shabnam who wanted to persue their studies on the self-study basis. It was also clarified in that letter that the cases of all those students do not fall in the category of Item 3 of Chapter 3, therefore, as the permission to persue the study on the self-study basis can only be granted to the students whose parents have been transferred during mid-term and those students are not from that category, however, a request was made that such permission be also granted to those four students, so that they concentrate on their studies on the self-study basis. (8). The above letter dated 2.9.1989 (Annex. 6) addressed by the Principal of the School to the Secretary of the Board remained unreplied. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner, father of Shabnam, approached the Secretary of the Board, but he was orally told that no such permission can be granted, therefore, the petitioner has filed this petition. (9). At the outset, it may be stated that the learned counsel Mr. Joshi, for the petitioner, has given up his challenge to the vires of Item No.3 of Guidelines in Chapter 3 framed by the Secretary, Education Board, Rajasthan, Ajmer, therefore, I am not required to deal with the same. (10). Mr. Joshi then, contended that the initial action of the Principal of the Respondent No.3-School insisting upon the daughter of the petitioner to take optional subject of Economic Administration instead of Mathematics on self-study basis, was wrong and absolutely unjust. He submitted that when the Principal herself realised this, she once again wrote a letter dated 2.9.1999 (Annex.6), requesting the Secretary of the Board to grant permission not only to the daughter Shabnam of the petitioner, but also 2 and 3 other girls who have different optional subjects in Standard 11th and 12th respectively. Unfortunately, the said letter remai-ned unreplied. He submitted that the stand taken by the Respondent-Board not to grant permission to the daughter of the petitioner to study in Standard 11th in Commerce with the optional subject of Mathematics of her choice on the ground that she is not falling in the category of children of those transferred persons, is absolutely wrong and illegal. He submitted that the stand taken by the Respondent-Board not to grant permission to the daughter of the petitioner to study in Standard 11th in Commerce with the optional subject of Mathematics of her choice on the ground that she is not falling in the category of children of those transferred persons, is absolutely wrong and illegal. He submitted that as per the Guidelines framed by the Board, there is no clear embargo from granting permission to the students other than the students of those persons who have come on transfer. When there is no such prohibition laid down in the Guidelines, then, the Respondent-Board ought to have granted permission to the daughter of the petitioner also for studying in Standard 11th with the optional subject of her choice on self-study basis. He, there-fore, submitted that the Respondent-Board be directed to grant permission to the daughter of the petitioner to study in Standard 11th in Commerce stream with optional subject of Mathematics. (11). However, learned counsel Mr. Manish Shishodia appearing for the Respondent 2-Board submitted that when the challenge to the vires or the validity of the Guidelines on Item No.3 in Chapter 3 of the Guidelines framed by the Board, is given up by the learned counsel for the petitioner, then, nothing survives in the metter and the relief prayed for in the petition to direct the Respondent-Board to give permission to the daughter of the petitioner to study in Standard 11th in Commerce stream with optional subject of Mathematics cannot be granted. He submitted that such a permission could only be granted in cases of those students whose parents have come on transfer. He also submitted that Chapter 19 of the Hand Book issued by the Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan, is regarding Senior Secondary (Academic) Examinations and the entire Hand Book containing guidelines in the same is issued by the Board in exercise of its powers vested in it under the Rajasthan Secondary Education Act, 1957 (for short, ``the Act). He further submits that Clause 10 of Chapter 15 of the Hand Book containing guidelines clearly provides that no student will be given permission to take subject which is not taught at the recognised institution, though subject may be recognised in the Examination. He further submits that Clause 10 of Chapter 15 of the Hand Book containing guidelines clearly provides that no student will be given permission to take subject which is not taught at the recognised institution, though subject may be recognised in the Examination. He, therefore, submits that even a private student is not entitled to have the subject of his or her choice on self-study basis under Clause 10 of Chapter 15. Lastly, he submitted that the Honble Supreme Court has, time and again, sternly warned the High Courts and the Subordinate Courts from interfering with the educational system, therefore, this Court should not grant such prayer which may amount to opening Pandoras box and cause a great inconvenience to the Board. For example, he submitted that if this permission is given in a case of one individual student, then the Board has to make arrangements for sending the papers in that School for that student and collecting the answer-books etc. which will not be in the interest of any one. He placed reliance upon an order passed by the learned Single Judge of Jaipur Bench of this Court on 3.4.98 in Kumar Sharda Rew vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (1) and submitted that identical prayer made by the petitioner in that case was rejected and the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. (12). I would like to reproduce the entire order, which is as under:- 3.4.1998. Honble Gyan Sudha Misra, J. Mr. DP Pujari, for petitioner. The petitioner has been restrained from appearing in the secondary school examination scheduled to be held on 6.04.1998 on the ground that she could not have been allowed by the concerned school to undergo the course of history as a private candidate as a result of which an order was passed in December, 1997 and thereafter on 6.02.1998 where in it was ordered that she would not be allowed to appear in the examination as she has studied in a school where there was no provision for teaching of history. The petitioner has challenged these decisions on the ground that as per the instructions of the Board, she could have been allowed to go through the course of history as a private candidate. The petitioner has challenged these decisions on the ground that as per the instructions of the Board, she could have been allowed to go through the course of history as a private candidate. However, the counsel for the Board has explained that this relaxation has been made only in regard to such candidate whose parents have been transferred in the midst of the session which admittedly is not the case of the petitioner. The relief sought by the petitioner, therefore, cannot be granted contrary to the rules of the Board. In fact, the petitioner as already stated, was also intimated in this regard in December, 1997. I, thus, see no reason to entertain this writ petition and hence it is rejected. Sd/- (GYAN SUDHA MISRA), J. (13). There cannot be any quarrel with the principle laid down by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the above case of Kumar Sharda Rew (Supra). (14). However, from the aforesaid order, it is clear that it was a case of a private candidate not covered under a specific provision/guidelines in Clause 10 of Chapter 15. Thus, the private candidates are not entitled to get such relief and it was rightly refused by the learned Single Judge of this Court. (15). However, the case on hand stands totally on a different footing. The daughter of the petitioner is not studying as a private candidate, but she is a regular student. She got her admission in Class 11th in the respondent No.3-School. In fact, from the beginning, the Principal of Respondent No.3-School was insisting upon the daughter of the petitioner to take optional subject of Economics with Commer-ce instead of Mathematics, but, later on, she herself wrote to the Board to grant such permission to those students to appear in the Examination, because all the students secured First Division in 10th Standard and if the permission is not granted, then it may seriously affect their career and future. From the reply dated 25.8.1989 (Annex.5), it is clear that such permission was not granted in view of Item No.3 of Chapter 3 of the Guidelines framed by the Board. It provides that the relaxation is made in favour of such students whose parents have been transferred in the midst of the session. From the reply dated 25.8.1989 (Annex.5), it is clear that such permission was not granted in view of Item No.3 of Chapter 3 of the Guidelines framed by the Board. It provides that the relaxation is made in favour of such students whose parents have been transferred in the midst of the session. Such provision is made by the Board keeping in mind the hardship suffered by the children of those persons who have been transferred during midst of the Academic session. If such permission can be granted to those students who-se parents have come on transfer during midst of session, then, in my considered opinion, there is no reason whatsoever, to deny such permission to a regular student who wants to study a subject of his/her choice on self-study basis. If the Board has any inconvenience of sending examination papers, collecting answer books of such students, then the cases of such students may be very very few, then, there is no reason to have little more inconvenience in the cases of regular students. In fact, from the letter of the Principal, addressed to the Board, it is clear that out of 100 students, only 4 students wanted to study in their own school with an optional subject of their choice, when such request is made, then, in absence of any clear provision which is provided for the private candidate by the Board in its guidelines, there was no reason for the Board to refuse such permission. (16). Even after independence of more than 50 years, in our country, most of the people remained illiterate or semi-illiterate and ratio of education in girls is much less than the boys, particularly in higher standards. In my considered opinion, instead of taking such rigid stand of refusing to grant permission to a daughter of the petitioner to study on self-study basis with an optional subject of her choice, if the permission was granted to a student to study with the optional subject of her own choice, then it would have boosted the moral of a student, particularly when this student is a girl. By issuing such directions to the Board for such type of cases, there is no invasion in educational field as submitted by Mr. Manish Shishodia, lear-ned counsel for the respondents. By issuing such directions to the Board for such type of cases, there is no invasion in educational field as submitted by Mr. Manish Shishodia, lear-ned counsel for the respondents. The judicial intervention is very much necessary in these type of cases when the question of education of a bright student is at stake. (17). In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the respondent-Board committed a grave error in refusing to grant permission to the daughter of the petitioner to study with Mathematics subject which is an optional subject of her own choice. Before parting, I must state that Chapter 19 deals with the Senior Secondary (Academic) Examinations and for such examination, two subjects are compulsory; (1) Hindi and (2) English, in all the five streams including Commerce. In Commerce, only there are as many as 7 optional subjects, out of which, two optional subjects are also compulsory to be taken by the student as an optional subjects, they are (1) English and (2) Business Organisation. Rest of subjects student has an option to take any one subject of his or her choice, out of remaining 5 subjects. When the daughter of the petitioner has opted for a subject of Mathema-tics, though it is not being taught in the respondent-school, that does not mean that she should be refused permission to study on the self-study basis by the Respondents Board. At the cost of repetition, I may state that when there is no clear ban or prohibition for a regular student to study on self-study basis, which is provided only in case of private candidates, then there was no reason. whatsoever for the Respondent-Board to refuse such permission. In fact when the Board has made the specific provision in the guidelines framed at Item No.3 in Chapter 3 for giving permission to the students whose parents have come on transfer, then, same standard should have been adopted by the Board in cases of regular students and the permission should have been granted. (18). In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed and Respondent No.2-Board is directed to grant permission to Shabnam, daughter of the petitioner, studying in Standard 11th B in respondent No.3-School Rajkiya Balika Uchch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Pali to study in commerce with optional subject of Mathematics of her choice. (18). In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed and Respondent No.2-Board is directed to grant permission to Shabnam, daughter of the petitioner, studying in Standard 11th B in respondent No.3-School Rajkiya Balika Uchch Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Pali to study in commerce with optional subject of Mathematics of her choice. Accordingly, Respondent No. 3 is directed to permit Shabnam, daughter of the petitioner, to study in 11th Standard in Commerce with an optional subject of Mathematics and not to insist for an optional subject of Economics or any other subject. (19). The writ petition is accordingly allowed. However, there will no order as to costs.