Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 268 (PAT)

Binod Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2003-03-05

NARAYAN ROY

body2003
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. At the initial stage preliminary objection was raised by Mr. J.P.Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) about the maintainability of this application as it has been filed by the guardians of four of the students who are desirous to appear in the ensuing matriculation examination to be held from tomorrow i.e. 6th March, 2003. 3. It appears that the petitioners, four in number, are guardians of four of the students whose names have been included in Annexures A and A/1 to the counter affidavit. Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that this writ application would be maintainable even on behalf of the guardians of the students as the wards of the petitioners are minors and, therefore, the objection raised by learned counsel for the board is not sustainable. 4. Even assuming that the petitioners wards are minors, the petitioners cannot be allowed to represent all the students numbering 262 in all who have not been allowed to appear in the ensuing examination. The petitioners may spouse the cases of their wards only four in number namely Sidharth Kumar, Anshu Kumar, Babul Kumar and Ketan Raj Ranjan. This writ application, therefore, would be maintainable for those students as referred to above. But in larger interest of the students, the interest of similarly situated students should not be allowed to be jeopardised and this court should safeguard their interest as well. 5. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the students of Town Uchcha Vidyalaya, Ara were admitted in Class IX either on the basis of the Transfer Certificate of recognised schools or on the basis of declaration given by their guardians and they continued their studies in the school, up to Class X and for their appearance in the matriculation examination their forms and fees etc. were forwarded by the Headmaster of the School to the respondent Board but on one pretext or the other forms and fees so submitted by the Headmaster of the school were not finally accepted and admit cards were not given to these students for their appearance in the said examination to be held from 6th March, 2003. were forwarded by the Headmaster of the School to the respondent Board but on one pretext or the other forms and fees so submitted by the Headmaster of the school were not finally accepted and admit cards were not given to these students for their appearance in the said examination to be held from 6th March, 2003. Learned counsel further submitted that these students were the genuine students of the school in question and merely on technical grounds their claim should not be rejected nor it can be said that in case they had not passed the requisite examination or had not produced the Transfer Certificate from recognised school tor their admission in Class IX they will forfeit their right to appear in the matriculation examination. 6. With reference to the different reports as contained in Annexure 6/1, Annexure 14 and Annexure-C to the counter affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no where it has categorically been held that the petitioners were not genuine students of the school rather it appears that they were admitted in the school in question in Class IX and they studied in the school for two years and they were eligible to appear in the matriculation examination. Learned counsel, however, admits that certain technical flaws were found in the admission of these students in Class IX. However, the authorities by allowing the petitioners to study in the school for two years both in Class IX and Class X, they acquiesced in the infirmities and they should have given wide construction of Article 267 of the Bihar Education Code, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and the learned counsel insisted for issuance of a direction upon the respondents to allow these petitioners to appear in the matriculation examination to be held from 6th March, 2003. 7. A detail counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Board stating therein inter alia that 262 students whose names were recommended by the Headmaster of the school, the list of which has been enclosed in the counter affidavit, were not genuine students of the school inasmuch as their admission in Class IX was not found in accordance with law and, therefore, the Collector of Ara recommended not to allow these students to appear in the ensuing matriculation examination. Mr. Mr. Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Board, with reference to the counter affidavit, therefore, submits that illegalities committed by the Headmaster should not be allowed to perpetuate and the students since were not the genuine/bonafide, they should not be allowed to appear in the ensuing examination in view of the provisions laid down in Article 267 of the Code. Mr. Shukla Education Officer, the Additional District Magistrate and the District Magistrate, Ara submits that the Additional District Magistrate in its report as contained in Annexure 14 has misconstrued the provision of Article 267 of the Code and has not verified the genuineness of the students with reference to the records of the school and, therefore, the respondent Board was justified in its action in not allowing the students of the school to sit in the ensuing matriculation examination. 8. It appears from the pleadings of the parties that to verify the genuineness of the students of the school numbering 262, the matter was enquired into firstly by the District Education Officer, Ara and he submitted his report as contained in Annexure 6/1 dated 26th December, 2002. The report of the District Education Officer, Ara, however, was not acted upon and an enquiry was again entrusted to Additional Collector, Bhojpur who in its turn, enquired into the matter and submitted the report dated 10th February, 2003 as contained in Annexure 14. The Collector, thereafter, finally reported the matter to the Board vide his recommendation as contained in Annexure C dated 25th February, 2003. It also appears that before recommendation of the Collector as contained in Annexure C dated 25th February, 2003 the impugned order as contained in Annexure 1 was issued by the respondent Board dated 21st February, 2003 cancelling the registration of 262 students of the school in question. 9. From the reports as referred to above, it appears that they are not consistent. The District Education Officer in its report as contained in Annexure 6/1 has doubted the genuineness of 262 students whereas from the report of the Additional Collector as contained in Annexure 14 it appears that the entry of some of the students in the school has been doubted and a recommendation was made for fresh consideration of the matter. The District Education Officer in its report as contained in Annexure 6/1 has doubted the genuineness of 262 students whereas from the report of the Additional Collector as contained in Annexure 14 it appears that the entry of some of the students in the school has been doubted and a recommendation was made for fresh consideration of the matter. From Annexure C to the counter affidavit it appears that the Collector of the district without consid ering the report of the Additional Collector as contained in Annexure 14 sent his recommendation to the Board outright rejecting the claim of the students. 10. It is not in dispute that 262 students had got their admission in Class IX in the school in question and they continued to study in the school for two years and they read up to Class X. However, the fact as to whether all these students were admitted in Class IX on the basis of the Transfer Certificate of the recognised school is in dispute. According to learned counsel for the petitioners 72 students were admitted in Class IX on the basis of Transfer certificate granted by the recognised school and rest were admitted on declaration given by their guardians and after passing the requisite examination. Annexure 14, the report of the Additional District Magistrate, Bhojpur corroborates the version disclosed by learned counsel for the petitioners as indicated above and thereby he observed for fresh consideration of the matter. At this threshold, it would be difficult for this court to hold that all 262 students were not the genuine students of the school and they were illegally admitted in Class IX. 11. Even assuming that these students were admitted illegally, the illegalities so committed were curable in nature as they were allowed to study in the school for two years and after having passed Xth class examination it cannot be said that they have forfeited their right to appear in the matriculation examination only on the basis of the fact that their entry in the school was said to be illegal. Article 267 of the Code, in my opinion, should be given a liberal construction and it should be applied to restrict in cases where students have been admitted in the school only for the purpose of their appearance in the matriculation examination and not to complete their classes in the school in question. Article 267 of the Code, in my opinion, should be given a liberal construction and it should be applied to restrict in cases where students have been admitted in the school only for the purpose of their appearance in the matriculation examination and not to complete their classes in the school in question. It can be a case where the Board may be apprehensive about the genuineness of students admitted in the schools only for the purpose of their appearance in the matriculation examination without completing the courses of studies from Class IX to Class X. In that case, the respondent Board may act strictly in accordance with Article 267 of the Code. However, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to me that the matter requires fresh consideration at the face of the different reports submitted by the district administration and also the District Education Officer. 12. So far allowing the students to appear in the examination to be held from tomorrow is concerned, it does not appear to be feasible as the matter requires fresh consideration by the respondent Board. 13. For the reasons and discussions aforementioned, the respondent Board is directed to scrutinise the matter afresh through the agency prescribed in Article 267 of the Code and consider the case afresh in accordance with law. In case the respondent Board will be satisfied from the reports of the authorities that these students had got their entry in Class IX in the school in question either on the basis of transfer certificate of the recognised school or on the basis of the declaration given by their guardians after passing the requisite examination, it will allow such students to appear in the supplementary examination to be held some times in 2003 itself. In case the respondent Board will find that some of the students have been admitted only for the purpose of their appearance in the matriculation examination, it will pass necessary orders in terms of Article 267 of the Code. This exercise, however, must be completed by the respondent Board within a period of one month from today. 14. With the aforementioned observations/directions, this writ application is disposed of.