Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 749 (ORI)

Anusuya Tripathy v. State of Orissa

2007-09-25

A.S.NAIDU

body2007
JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. : Non-publication of the petitioner’s result in Special Certified Teacher’s Examination, 1991 conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, Cuttack is her grievance in this writ application. She has prayed for issue of direction to the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, Cuttack to publish her result. 2. Admittedly the petitioner had appeared at the Special Certified Teachers’ Examination held in the year 1991. Unfortu¬nately her result was not published by the Board of Secondary Education on the ground that her admission to the Institution where she claimed to have completed her training course was in violation of the stipulations made under Article 412 of the Orissa Education Code read with Notification No.167-VIE-CP/15-85-EYS dated 29.4.1985 issued by the Government of Orissa in the Education and Youth Services Department which imposed restriction on admission of a student to the training course below a particu¬lar age. 3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, except one Narahari Prusty, all other students who were admitted in the Certified Teacher’ Training course in Maa Mangala Secondary Training School, Kakatpur were below the age of seventeen years. Considering such fact, Government of Orissa in the Education and Youth Services Department adopted a Resolution bearing No.47510-VIE/CP-48/76E dated 6.11.1976 by which the minimum age of a candidate passing High School Certificate Examination for his admission to the Secondary Training School was fixed at eighteen years. Subsequently the same was further modified to seventeen years consequent upon abolition of Class XI from High School level, vide Government Resolution dated 29.4.1985 and as such all the students were permitted to appear in the Examination. 4. After receiving Rule of this Court, a counter-affidavit has been filed by Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, Cuttack, opposite party No.3. In para-4 thereof it is averred that though Maa Mangala Secondary School at Kakatpur was an unrecognized Secondary Training School, Government by virtue of a G.O. dated 11.5.1990 allowed the students of the said Institution along with the students of other Institutions similarly placed to appear at a Special C.T. Examination in the year 1991 once for all stipu¬lating a condition that the Director, Secondary Education, oppo¬site party No.2, would furnish a list of eligible students to it (opposite party No.3). In para-5 it has been further averred that such a list furnished by the Director of Secondary Education did not contain the name of the petitioner though the Headmaster of the petitioner’s school had furnished the forms filled in by the petitioner for the Examination in question. It has further been averred in the counter-affidavit that since there was mad rush and shortage of time to scrutinize the application forms submitted by several such category of unrecognized C.T. Schools, the petitioner was allowed to sit in the Examination. Subsequent¬ly on verification it was revealed that the petitioner’s name was not there in the list of eligible students furnished by the Director of Secondary Education. Hence the petitioner being not a genuine student, her result was not published. 5. The Director of Secondary Education, opposite party No.2, in his counter-affidavit took a positive stand that the list furnished by him to the Board of Secondary Education did not contain the name of the petitioner as she was found to be under-aged on the date the list was so furnished. But the, steps were taken for relaxation of age restriction. Since Government was pleased to condone the age restriction, the petitioner was al¬lowed to appear in the Special C.T. Examination in the year 1991 and necessary intimation was issued to opposite party No.3. Thus there was no bar for opposite party No.3- Board to publish the result of the petitioner. 6. This Writ application is pending before this Court since 1999. In course of hearing this Court directed the Director of Secondary Education to produce the list of candidates fur¬nished by the Directorate to the Board of Secondary Education. In spite of several adjournments as the said list was not produced before Court, this Court directed opposite party No.2 to produce all the relevant records for perusal of the Court. Still there was some delay in complying with the order of this Court. There¬fore this Court directed Shri Pitambar Das, Joint Director of Secondary Education to remain present in Court in person along with all the relevant documents/files. Shri Das appeared in Court on 11th September, 2007 and produced the relevant file. Still there was some delay in complying with the order of this Court. There¬fore this Court directed Shri Pitambar Das, Joint Director of Secondary Education to remain present in Court in person along with all the relevant documents/files. Shri Das appeared in Court on 11th September, 2007 and produced the relevant file. A perusal of the said file reveals that Government was pleased to relax the age restriction so far as the petitioner was concerned and the said fact was duly intimated to the Secretary of the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, vide letter No.48505/M-II-18/97 dated 28th of November, 1998.By the said letter the Deputy Direc¬tor of Secondary Education had clearly intimated the Board au¬thorities that admission of petitioner Anusurya Tripathy at Maa Mangala Secondary Training School, Kakatpur who was under-aged had been relaxed in consonance with Article 412 of the Orissa Education Code. 7. Article 412 of the Orissa Education Code deals with admission to different Secondary Training Schools and stipulates that admission will ordinarily confined to candidates whose age must be not less than nineteen years and must not exceed twenty-five years. It further stipulates that the controlling authority will have the power in very special circumstances to admit a candidate whose age does not fall within the above limit. Thus, the Government has power and authority under Article 412 of the Education Code to relax the age restriction. 8. As has been stated earlier, the only stand taken by opposite party No.3-Board in its counter-affidavit for not pub¬lishing the result of the petitioner is that she was under-aged and her name did not find place in the list of eligible candi¬dates furnished to it by the Director of Secondary Education, opposite party No.2. In view of the stand taken by opposite party No.2, Director of Secondary Education that initially in the list of names furnished to opposite party No.3 the name of the peti¬tioner could not be mentioned as her case for relaxation of age restriction was under consideration, but after the relaxation was allowed the matter was intimated to the Board in the year 1998, this Court finds no reason as to why the result of the petitioner has not been published thereafter. 9. 9. Learned counsel for the Board of Secondary Education however submits that as the admission of the petitioner to the training course itself was contrary to the provisions of the Education Code, this Court may not direct the Board to publish her result. Such submission, according to this Court, is not tenable, inasmuch as in the counter-affidavit of the Board, the only ground taken for non-publication of the petitioner’s result was that her name was not in the list of eligible candidates furnished by the Director of Secondary Education, opposite party No.2. On the other hand, opposite party No.2 in its counter-affidavit has taken a positive stand and has produced the rele¬vant records which reveal that in the year 1998 the lower age limit of the petitioner was relaxed by the government and the fact was intimated to the Secretary, Board of Secondary Educa¬tion. As stated earlier, under Article 412 of the Code Government has the power to relax the age restriction and it has been pleased to exercise that power in the case of the petitioner. 10. In the aforesaid scenario, while rejecting the stand taken by the Board of Secondary Education, opposite party No.3, this Court directs it to publish the result of the petitioner and communicate the same to her within four weeks of communication of this judgment. This Writ application is accordingly disposed of. Application disposed of.