Judgment 1. The case of the petitioner in short is that the petitioner is a regular student of Class-VIlI and is studying in Hansraj Govt. Higher Secondary School, village Badhal, Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur. He was admitted to that school on 8-7-199 1 but on account of financial difficulty he could not deposit the fee therefore, the school authorities struck off his name from the roll of the school. The petitioner was again readmitted in the said school on 11-9-1998 for the academic session 1998-99. 2. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing that petitioner ever since his readmission w.e.f 11-9-1998, has been regularly attending the classes and as per the criteria laid down in the rules governing the examination of the Board for Class-VIII for the session 1998-99, the minimum requisite percentage which the candidate should possess for the purpose of determining his/her eligibility to appear in the Board’s Examination is 70% and that the petitioner did fulfill the aforesaid requirement since he had secured 70% of the attendance for the purpose of determining his eligibility as on 15-4-1999 when his candidature was erroneously rejected by the Board after issuance of due permission letter to appear in the aforesaid examination on 15-4-1999. 3. In reply to the aforesaid contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mahesh Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondents has stated that the petitioner was not eligible to appear in the aforesaid examination since the criteria for determining the eligibility on the basis of the requisite attendance of 70% is to he reckoned w.e.f the date when the candidate was originally admitted in the school viz. 8-7-1991 and not from the date when he sought readmission i.e. 11-9-1998. He further contended that since the petitioner did not fulfil the requisite requirement as stipulated in the Rules 1998-99, he was rightly held not eligible to appear in the aforesaid examination of the Board. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties, examined their rival claims and contentions as well as the relevant rules governing the subject. He further contended that since the petitioner did not fulfil the requisite requirement as stipulated in the Rules 1998-99, he was rightly held not eligible to appear in the aforesaid examination of the Board. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties, examined their rival claims and contentions as well as the relevant rules governing the subject. Prima facie, I am of the considered view that as per the rules of the Board for academic session 1998-99 which have been duly adopted by the State Education Department for regulating admission for Board Examination (Class-VIII), the minimum requirement of 70% of attendance as stipulated under the rules should be reckoned from the date of fresh admission i.e. the date when the petitioner sought fresh admission/re-admission in the school as on 11-9-1998 and not from the date when he was originally admitted to the school as on 8-7-1991. From the perusal of the Rules 1998-99, it is borne out that it is nowhere indicated in the said rules that for determining the eligibility of the candidate the requisite attendance of 70% should be reckoned w.e.f either from the date when the candidate was originally admitted on the rolls of the school or from the date he sought fresh admission in the school. Since the rules are silent on this aspect, the benevolent and fair interpretation which should be given to this rule should be that which is more helpful to the students and which should be more fair for advancing the cause of justice man one which may not defeat the same i.e. which should obviously be just more helpful for the benefit of the candidates to ensure the benevolent object of the rules that no candidate just on the ground of narrow technical interpretation of the rules be deprived of his right to receive education from the State Authorities since such narrow construction would obviously be defeating the Directive Principles of State Policy as enshrined in the Constitution of India of imparting education to the students more particularly the students who are coming from the rural areas since their right to receive education is integral part of right to life and liberty which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The human existence would obviously be meaningless if on such technical ground a candidate is to be deprived of his right to receive education in a recognised governmental institution. 5. Asa result of above discussion and in order that the academic career of the petitioner may not suffer if he is to be deprived of his right to appear in the examination of Class-VIlI and also having regard to the fact that since the petitioner fulfilled the eligibility criteria with regard to minimum attendance of 70% for the academic session 1998-99 which the respondents did not take note of before passing the impugned order dt. 15-4-1999 (Annexure-4) consequent upon which the petitioner was debarred and held ineligible from appearing in the aforesaid examination only on the ground of shortage of attendance. I am of the view that petitioner deserves to succeed. 6. Thewrit petition is consequently allowed with the direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear in the examination for Class-VIII for all the papers by holding the examination separately in relaxation of the rules since the petitioner was eligible to appear in the examination as per the rules. Since the permission for appearing in the Supplementary Examination can only be given in respect of two papers only in the event of candidate not qualifying the main examination. I am of the view that this restricted interpretation cannot be given to me rules in the petitioner’s case since he was otherwise not permitted by the respondents to appear in all the papers as referred to in the writ petition. There will be no order as to costs.