Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1992 (PNJ)

Ashok Kumar v. State Of Punjab

2007-11-15

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, AJAI LAMBA

body2007
Judgment Ajai Lamba, J. 1. This petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus seeking directions to the respondent-authorities to issue Roll Numbers to the petitioners so as to enable them to take up 10+2 examination which were to commence with effect from 13.3.2007. 2. The case set up by the petitioners is that they appeared in matriculation examination in March, 2005 under the Board of School Education, Haryana. The petitioners, however, were declared fail as they could not pass more than 3 subjects. As per the policy of the Board known as "Haryana Open School", the petitioners again appeared to pass the subjects in which they had failed, in October, 2005. They were declared as pass and were issued certificates on 29.11.2005. After having passed their matriculation examination, the petitioners applied to respondent No. 2 for grant of permission to appear in 10+2 examination commencing on 13.3.2007. The permission was sought while relying on the certificates issued by the Board (Haryana Open School) on 29.11.2005. A letter dated 22.1.2007 (Annexure P-4), however, has been received by them asking them to produce the proof of having taken the matriculation examination. Since the Roll Numbers were not issued, they approached respondent No. 2-Punjab School Education Board, SAS Nagar, Mohali, seeking issuance of Roll Numbers. However, on 6.2.2007, the prayer was declined. Legal notices were served. Since no action has been taken, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. In paras 9 to 10 of the petitioner, certain instances have been given with the plea that the said persons have been issued Roll Numbers and their case is not different from that of the petitioners. 4. Notice of motion was issued. The stand of the respondents is that as per the Regulations, the petitioners were not eligible as the gap between their appearance in 10th class examination and 10+2 examination was less than 2 academic years. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, faced with this stand, has pleaded that the case of persons mentioned in paras 9 and 10 of the petition, was also akin and, therefore, the stand as taken by the respondents is clearly arbitrary. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 7. A reference to Regulation 6 of the Senior Secondary Examination Regulations is necessary. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 7. A reference to Regulation 6 of the Senior Secondary Examination Regulations is necessary. Relevant portion of Regulation 6 (b) reads as under:- "(b) Further, the following categories of candidates shall also be eligible to appear in Humanities group only, as a private candidate at the annual examination :- (i) A candidate who has passed XIth class examination or its equivalent examination atleast one academic year previously. (ii) For the examination to be conducted in 1993 and thereafter, a candidate who has passed Matriculation or its equivalent examination atleast two academic years previously...." The certification given by the learned counsel for the respondents is that in the case of the persons mentioned in paras 9 and 10 of the petition, the students had not failed while in the case of the petitioners, they had failed and the gap between the matriculation and 10+2 examinations, admittedly, was less than 2 academic years. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to dispute the fact that the case is not covered under the Rules. The claim, therefore, is based only on parity with the case of the persons mentioned in the petition. In view of the distinction drawn by the learned counsel for the respondents, as noticed above, we find that the petitioners do not have any right to appear in the examination as pleaded by them, in view of the Regulations. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are unable to invoke the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.