Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 43 (RAJ)

Komal v. Board of Secondary Education

2010-01-06

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2010
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers: "non-petitioners No.1 to 3 may kindly be directed to allow petitioner in Secondary Examination 2009 as a regular student, which is going to commence from 23.3.2009. further the letter (Annexure-1) dated 3.3.2009 may kindly be quashed and non-petitioners No. 1 to 3 may kindly be directed to condone the short of attendance. Any other appropriate order may also be made in favour of the petitioner." 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: The non-petitioner No. 3 is established by the Rajasthan Secondary Education Act, 1957. The petitioner is a regular student of secondary class in non-petitioner No. 3. The petitioner took admission in the school and thereafter she filed examination form for the secondary school examination and the form was forwarded by the non petitioner No. 3. The non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 accepted it. The petitioner was allotted roll number, which are 0549263. The petitioner was sick and due to sickness, she could not attend the class from 4.10.08 to 21.10.08, 3.1.09 to 10.1.09 and 19.1.09 to 27.1.09 and 12.2.09 to 21.2.09. The petitioner has also annexed the copies of the sickness certificates and application was also given to the non-petitioner No. 3. The non-petitioner has given a letter dated 3.3.09 to the petitioner informing her that her attendance is short, therefore, she is not allowed to sit in the examination of the secondary education 2009. In the letter it was also mentioned that the petitioner has only 55% attendance and according to the rules minimum 75% attendance is required. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that according to rules secondary class 340 meetings are necessary but the non-petitioner No.3 has not completed 340 days and has only run for 294 days only. It is also contended that the petitioner was regular but due to sickness, she failed to attend the class. The headmaster is also having authority to give benefit of 50 meetings and the petitioner has only attended 164 days. It is further contended that as per directions of this Court, the petitioner has participated in the examination, however, the result of the same has not been declared. The headmaster is also having authority to give benefit of 50 meetings and the petitioner has only attended 164 days. It is further contended that as per directions of this Court, the petitioner has participated in the examination, however, the result of the same has not been declared. Learned counsel for the petitioner also cited relevant provisions of the Act, which are as under: ^^4- ikB;Øe ds fu;fer v/;;u gsrq cksMZ dh fdlh Hkh ijh{kk dh rS;kjh ds fy, d{kk dh cSBdksa dh U;wure la[;k ds laca/k esa fuEufyf[kr fu;eksa dk ikyu djuk vko';d gksxk& ¼1½ ijh{kk ds fnuksa dks NksM+dj ftruh fefVaXl dksbZ ekU;rk izkIr laLFkk 'kSf{kd o"kZ esa [kqyh jgs mu fefVaXl dh yxHkx la[;k uhps fy[ks vuqlkj gksxh& ¼d½ ek/;fed@izosf'kdk ijh{kk nsus okyksads fy,& d{kk 9 420 ehfVaXl d{kk 10 340 fefVaXl ¼[k½ d{kk 12 ¼mPp ek/;fed@ofj"B mik/;k;½ dh ijh{kk nsus okyksa ds fy;s 340 fefVaXl ¼x½ ;fn dskbZ ekU;rk izkIr laLFkk fu/kkZfjr U;wure la[;k ls de ehfVaXl ds fy;s [kqyh gks rks Hkh ijh{kkFkhZ dh mifLFkfr 75 izfr'kr gksuh pkfg;sA ¼2½ dksbZ Hkh vH;FkhZ fdlh ekU;rk izkIr laLFkk ls cksMZ dh ijh{kk esa cSBus ds fy;s mlh le; ;ksX; ekuk tk;sxk tc] ;fn og lSds.Mjh Ldwy ijh{kk esa cSB jgk gks rks uoha vkSj nloha d{kvksa ds nks 'kSf{kd l=ksa esa ftruh ehfVaXl laLFkk [kqyh jgh gks mldh mifLFkfr 75 izfr'kr ls de u jgh gks vkSj lhfu;j lSds.Mjh ijh{kk esa cSB jgk gks rks ,d 'kSf{kd l= esa ftruh fefVaXl] laLFkk [kqyh jgh gks mlesa mldh mifLFkfr 75 izfr'kr ls de u gksA ¼3½ fpfdRlk izek.k i= }kjk ifjiq"V vFkok iz/kkuk/;kid ds Lo;a ds Kku ds vk/kkj ij mlds }kjk izekf.kr okLrfod chekjh ds dkj.k ls vFkok v/;{k }kjk i;kZIr le>s gq, fdlh vU; dkj.k ls ;fn fdlh vH;FkhZ dh lEiw.kZ mifLFkfr ¼vuqRrh.kZ vFkok jksds gq, vH;fFkZ;ksa dks NksM+dj ftuds fy;s uhps [k.M ¼5½@¼6½ esa vyx izko/kku gS½ vko';d U;wure mifLFkfr ls de iM+rh gks rks ekU;rk izkIr laLFkk dk iz/kku lSds.Mjh@izosf'kdk ijh{kk ds fy;s vf/kd ls vf/kd 20 ehfVaXl rd dh vkSj lhfu;j lSd.Mjh@ofj"B mik/;k; ijh{kk ds fy;s 10 fefVaXl rd dh deh dks {kek dj ldrk gSA ,sls lc ekeys ftuesa bl fo'ks"kkf/kdkj dk iz;ksx fd;k x;k gks v/;{k dks lwfpr dj fn;s tk;saxsA vxj fdlh ekeys esa deh Åij crkbZ xbZ lhek ls Hkh vf/kd gks rks vR;Ur fo'ks"k ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa v/;{k lSds.Mjh Ldwy@izosf'kdk ijh{kk ds fy;s dqy 50 ehfVaXl rd dh rFk mPp ek/;fed @ofj"B mik/;k; ijh{kk ds fy;s dqy 25 ehfVaXl rd dh deh dks {kek dj ldrk gSA blesa 'kkyk iz/kku }kjk ns; NwV dh lhek Hkh 'kkfey gSA^^ 5. On the other hand Mr. B.L. Bhati, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 strongly opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. G.R. Kalla, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 also opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. In the interest of justice, I allow this writ petition. The letter/order dated 3.3.2009 (Annex. 1) issued by the respondent is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents No. 1 and 2 are directed to issue mark sheet of the petitioner declaring the result of the petitioner within three days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No. order as to costs.