Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1458 (RAJ)

Neetika v. The Section Officer of Exam. , CBSE

2011-07-22

VINEET KOTHARI

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsels. 2. A student, a girl of 19 years, has approached this Court by way of present writ petition being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned court below on 1/7/2009, whereby, the learned trial court rejected her application in a suit filed by her seeking admission in 12th standard to be conducted by the respondent - defendant - Central Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer in the year 2008-09. Since, she could not appear in 12th standard in the preceding year due to medical reason, she filled up the form as a private candidate in the next year for the same examination. When her eligibility was questioned by the Board on the examination form submitted by the petitioner-student before the respondent no.2 Central School, No.1, Bikaner, she had to file the present suit for declaring her eligible in the said examination and also declaring her result. On a temporary injunction application, the learned trial court vide order dated 28/2/2009 (Annex.4) directed the defendant Board to immediately permit her to appear in the examination, which was to commence from 2/3/2009, a few days after the said order. However, the result of the said examination was directed not to be declared without further orders from the Court. The petitioner was accordingly allowed to appear in the examination of 2008-09 and her result was withheld. Subsequently, when application under Section 151 CPC was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner, which came to be rejected by the trial court by the impugned order dated 1/7/2009 holding that such relief could not be granted under Section 151 CPC, the petitioner being aggrieved of the said order, is before this Court in the present writ petition. 3. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondent Board. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ajay Vyas urged that the result of the petitioner ought to have been declared by the learned trial court and by keeping the same pending by rejection of the application under Section 151 CPC and not deciding the suit expeditiously has caused serious prejudice to the plaintiff and has blocked her future career of studies. Ajay Vyas urged that the result of the petitioner ought to have been declared by the learned trial court and by keeping the same pending by rejection of the application under Section 151 CPC and not deciding the suit expeditiously has caused serious prejudice to the plaintiff and has blocked her future career of studies. He, therefore, prayed for allowing the present writ petition and declaring the result of her 12th standard examination in which she appeared under the orders of the Court subject to final decision of the suit in which her eligibility would be decided. The said prayer is strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent Board, Mr. A.K.Khatri. He cited the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Regional Officer, CBSE v. Ku.Sheena Peethambaran & Ors. - (2003) 7 SCC 719 in which in para 7, the Apex Court noticed the facts like this, "The student, namely, Respondent 1 had failed to clear her Class IX examination which was necessary requirement as provided under the bye-laws of the Board so as to be entitled to appear in Class X examination conducted by the Board. Despite notice, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the Respondent 1 and 2 to indicate any fact or circumstance so as to take any different view. Condoning the lapses or overlooking the legal requirements in consideration of mere sympathy factor does not solve the problem, rather breeds more violations in the hope of being condoned. It disturbs the discipline of the system and ultimately, adversely affects the academic standards." 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 School, Dr.P.S.Bhati also submitted that unless the eligibility of petitioner is decided, her result cannot, obviously, be declared by the respondent Board. He, thus, supported the respondent Board. 5. Having heard the learned counsels, this Court is of the opinion that both the respondents-defendants have taken a very narrow and pedantic approach in the matter and the petitioner is also victim of justice delivery system where delays in expeditious disposal is the rule of the day. When such questions come before the Court, the career or the turning point of the career ought to be kept in mind by the Court. When such questions come before the Court, the career or the turning point of the career ought to be kept in mind by the Court. By not deciding such suits, where eligibility is questioned for a long period, it completely wipe out the very purpose of filing the suit and besides that the period which passes in between, remains in an uncertain and gloomy period. The first responsibility in a case like the present one where the plaintiff student was allowed to submit her form as a private student and forwarded to the CBSE for allowing her to appear in the examination lies on the respondent defendant no.2 - School. For the alleged ground that her attendance was short in the second year, the defendant no.2 was fully aware of the fact situation and also being aware of the Rules of the Board, they certainly know that the plaintiff would not be allowed to appear in the examination by the defendant Board, therefore, by taking her examination form and forwarding the same to the Board lead & rather mislead the plaintiff on the path on which she proceeded further. The respondent no.1 - CBSE Board also put up a rather stubborn stand. One wonders for whose benefit withholding the result of a candidate, who has appeared in the examinations under the orders of the court, can inure. Possibly for none, except the student herself. When the Constitutional mandate is to provide education to all and that too liberally and widespread and specially making the education free upto college education available to the girls candidates, such an approach on the part of defendants can hardly be appreciated by the Court of Law. 6. Assuming for the sake of arguments that her attendance was short for medical reason or otherwise, it can hardly affect her eligibility as she had already appeared in the practical examinations in the previous year but could not write her main examinations due to medical reason and she tried in a second attempt as a private candidate and was given permission to appear as private candidate, which in such cases is intended to be given. Therefore, this Court is unable to appreciate the stand of CBSE that she was not eligible. Therefore, this Court is unable to appreciate the stand of CBSE that she was not eligible. The stand taken before this court that her result should not be allowed to be declared has added insult to the injury caused by these defendants to the plaintiff student. Learned trial court has also failed to exercise inherent jurisdiction vested in it under Section 151 CPC, which empowers the court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. The repository inherent power of the court in the shape of Section 151 CPC gives a wide umbrella and power to the Court to pass such orders, which are necessary in the interest of justice. Allowing her to appear in the examination by the previous order dated 28/2/2009, which she did and then not declaring her result and rejecting her application by the impugned order dated 1/7/2009 is like giving a bread to a hungry person and snatching it before it is gulped down. Such orders can hardly be sustained as serving the cause of justice. 7. Therefore, this Court allows this writ petition and directs the defendant CBSE, Ajmer to declare the result of 12th Standard undertaken by the petitioner in 2008-09 forthwith. The writ petition is allowed with costs of Rs. 2000/- on each of the defendant respondents.Petition allowed. *******