Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 322 (JK)

Syedah Mehvish v. State Of J. &K.

2003-10-16

MUZAFFAR JAN

body2003
Writ petition has been filed praying for direction to the respondents to declare the result of the matriculation examination of the petitioner in which she appeared under Roll No. 309464 Session Nov-Dec. 2002. 2. The main submissions made in the petition are that the petitioner filled up the form for taking the matriculation examination in the year 2002 which was scrutinized by the Official Incharge of the respondents department and the petitioner was permitted to take the examination, without any protest. The grievance of the petitioner is that having permitted to take the matriculation examination, without any objection, the respondents have withheld the result, without any Justification. On these submissions, it is prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the respondents be directed to declare the result of the petitioner. 3. While admitting that the petitioner was permitted to sit in the matriculation examination provisionally, the stand and submission of the respondents is that the petitioner was not eligible to take the examination on account of deficiency of her age less by 6 months and 13 days to the eligibility limit of 14 years as on the cut out date of 01.12.2002, for taking the examination. It is admitted that the petitioner was permitted to sit in the examination on humanitarian grounds and subsequently on realizing that the petitioner was under-age, her result has been withheld and the entire examination cancelled. In the affidavit, sworn by, Mr. N. A. Shah, Joint Secretary, J&K State Board of School Education, it is submitted that the form of the petitioner was scrutinized and was approved on the basis of the attestation of the Registration No. B-01-312039-3132 on the Form by the Principal of the School. The dealing official, under the impression that the petitioner has already been duly registered, accepted the genuineness of the Registration number and the validity of the documents submitted by the petitioner. It is also submitted that subsequently, it was ascertained that the petitioner was not allotted any Registration number, but the Registration number was wrongly entered and attested by the Principal, and as the petitioner was not eligible to take the examination, the impugned order was passed to cancel the examination under rules. On these submissions, it is prayed that the writ petition does not merit consideration and may be rejected. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. On these submissions, it is prayed that the writ petition does not merit consideration and may be rejected. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. The facts which are not denied but are admitted that the form submitted by the petitioner seeking permission to sit in the matriculation examination was allowed by the respondents, after scrutiny and at that time, no objection was raised to the eligibility, on account of age or other objections. There is nothing on record, shown or submitted to establish that the petitioner suppressed any fact in order to get herself admitted in the matriculation examination at the time of submission of her form. 6. It seems that the respondents having admitted the petitioner due to some error in the scrutiny committed in their department by the dealing official, which was noticed at a subsequent stage, have cancelled the examination of the petitioner, which is not permissible in view of the settled position of law as held by the Apex court in case titled reported as AIR 1976 SC 376. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under :- "Before issuing the admission card to a student to appear at Part I Law Examination in April 1972 it was the duty of the University authorities to scrutinize the admission form filled by the students in order to find out whether it was in order. Equally it was the duty of the Head of the Department of Law before submitting the form to the University to see that the form complied with all the requirements. If neither the Head of the Department nor the University authorities took care to scrutinize the admission form, then in not disclosing the shortage of percentage in attendance the question of the candidate committing a fraud did not arise. Similarly, when the candidate was allowed to appear at the part II Law Examination in may 1973, the University authorities had no jurisdiction to cancel his candidature for that examination. If the University authorities acquiesced in the infirmities which the admission form contained and allowed the candidate to appear in the Examination, then by force of the University Statute the University had no power to withdraw the candidature of the candidate." 7. If the University authorities acquiesced in the infirmities which the admission form contained and allowed the candidate to appear in the Examination, then by force of the University Statute the University had no power to withdraw the candidature of the candidate." 7. As it is held that, when there is no suppression of facts, fraud or misrepresentation attributed to the petitioner, and the petitioner is permitted to sit in the examination, and subsequently, it is found that the petitioner could not have been permitted to sit and take examination, the result cannot be withheld and the examination cannot be cancelled, on this account. In the instant case, the error seems to have been committed by the respondent for which no fault can be attributed to the petitioner. 8. The respondents may take action against the dealing official, for his negligence and straighten their working but the petitioner cannot be punished for default of the respondents. 9. The writ petition is, accordingly allowed with the direction that the respondents will declare the result of the matriculation examination of the petitioner. Disposed of.