Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 17 (CAL)

Sukhendu Pradhan v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2011-01-06

DIPANKAR DATTA

body2011
Judgment : 1. The petitioner claims to be the husband of Smt. Chhandadipa Mondal, a Class-XII student of Pathar Pratima Ananda Lal Adarsha Vidyalaya (hereafter the school). Smt. Chhandadipa Mondal (hereafter the student) admittedly is a minor. The petitioner has presented this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, inter alia, praying for a direction on the Headmaster and the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the school, respondents 4 and 5 respectively herein, as well as the Secretary of the West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education (hereafter the Council), respondent no.6 herein, to allow her take the Higher Secondary Examination, 2011 to be conducted by the Council in March/April, 2011 as a very special case. 2. The petitioner claims that after his marriage with the student was solemnised on May 2, 2010, she went to the school for continuing her study in Class-XII. However, the respondent no.4 prevented her on the ground that being married she would spoil the other unmarried students of the school. Repeated requests made by the petitioner and the in-laws of the student fell on deaf ears and she was not allowed to resume classes. The respondent no.4 ultimately agreed to permit the student to take the ‘Test Examination’. Such examination is considered to be a just and proper preparation for school students who intend to take the Higher Secondary Examination conducted by the Council. 3. It is alleged that in November, 2010, the student had been to the school to collect admit card for taking the ‘Test Examination’. However, the respondent no.4 refused to issue admit card to the student on the ground that she had not attended regular classes and, therefore, was ineligible to take the Higher Secondary Examination. Representations were made to various authorities, including the respondent no.6 herein, seeking remedy but the same proved abortive, except that the concerned Block Development Officer called the parties for a hearing. Realizing that the said officer is not competent to grant relief and finding no other option, the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction. 4. The respondent no.4 opposed the writ petition by filing counter affidavit. It is claimed therein that the student absented from April 26, 2010 without intimation. He was initially urged and thereafter threatened to allow the student to take the ‘Test Examination’ days before the same commenced on November 21, 2010. 4. The respondent no.4 opposed the writ petition by filing counter affidavit. It is claimed therein that the student absented from April 26, 2010 without intimation. He was initially urged and thereafter threatened to allow the student to take the ‘Test Examination’ days before the same commenced on November 21, 2010. The claim of the petitioner that the student approached the respondent no.4 in November, 2010 has been countered by averring that the school was closed on account of Puja Vacation from October 14, 2010 till November 7, 2010 as well as on November 8, 2010 owing to the death of a former Chief Minister of the State of West Bengal. The suggestion, therefore, is that the claim is false. Mr. Jana, learned advocate representing the respondent no.4 has urged that no relief be granted on this petition which is based on falsehood. That apart, it is his submission that the student has not submitted project work on the paper of Environment Science and also not attended the practical classes of Geography paper; hence, she would not be adequately prepared to take the Higher Secondary Examination. 5. Dr. Patra, learned advocate for the Council fairly conceded that the student is a victim of circumstances but did not hesitate to contend that she is not eligible to take the Higher Secondary Examination, not having attended the requisite number of classes. 6. I have heard learned advocates for the parties and considered the plight of the student with the care and sympathy the same deserves. I shall assume that the petitioner, on behalf of the student as next of friend, has presented the petition and, therefore, do not propose to dismiss it on the ground of lack of his locus standi. After all, a student belonging to the weaker class has expressed interest to pursue further study even after her marriage. Very soon, she is likely to be in the family way. So long her urge to learn subsists, the Court ought to encourage her. The petition, therefore, calls for a decision on its merits. 7. The question as to whether the student in fact approached the respondent no.4 or not to resume classes immediately after her marriage is, however, essentially one of fact and poses extreme difficulty to be answered, having regard to the specific denial in the counter affidavit of the respondent no.4. The petition, therefore, calls for a decision on its merits. 7. The question as to whether the student in fact approached the respondent no.4 or not to resume classes immediately after her marriage is, however, essentially one of fact and poses extreme difficulty to be answered, having regard to the specific denial in the counter affidavit of the respondent no.4. I am unable on this petition to answer such question on the basis of affidavit evidence and hold that Mandamus, as claimed, in absolute terms ought not to be granted in the circumstances. But it would be well within my province to determine whether relief, as claimed, can be moulded or not. 8. The claim in the petition that the student was not allowed to attend classes because of her marriage may, or may not, be correct. However, I would not be unjustified in taking judicial notice of a growing trend in the rural areas of West Bengal, i.e. the Headmasters of village schools with or without aid and assistance of the Secretary of the Managing Committee and its members quite often standing in the way of married girls’ education in schools up to the Higher Secondary level on the ground that they would tend to spoil other innocent students. If this trend is encouraged, that would demoralize the women folk and ruin their future. More than sixty years after attainment of independence, the nation cannot afford to leave unfortunate women like the student to be victims of the vagaries of a coterie who are more concerned in achieving vested interests. 9. I have noted two important aspects. One is that the student was promoted to Class-XII with relatively high marks, meaning thereby that she is not a non-achiever. The other is that in his counter affidavit, the respondent no.4 did not deny the averment in paragraph 7 of the petition that he agreed to permit the student to appear in the ‘Test Examination’. Failure of the respondent no.4 to deny such averment coupled with the student’s performance tilts the balance in her favour to have an order passed protecting her interest to the extent as possible. 10. Failure of the respondent no.4 to deny such averment coupled with the student’s performance tilts the balance in her favour to have an order passed protecting her interest to the extent as possible. 10. The President of the Council (despite not being a respondent here) is requested to consider the plight of the student sympathetically and to grant her the necessary permission to take the Higher Secondary Examination as a very very special case by deciding favourably, if not impossible, so that despite all the odds that she might have faced during the past few months, she feels encouraged to make advancement in her pursuit of learning. The President, I am sure, is aware of the number of students dropping out in the midst of academic sessions due to reasons beyond their control. The right of a child to education is now constitutionally recognized. Keeping in mind the same, the need to ensure that a victim of circumstances like the student does not have to stop mid-way cannot be over-emphasized. It shall be open to the President to subject the student to such test, as he may deem fit and proper in the circumstances, to ascertain the degree of her preparedness to face the stiff challenge, which the Higher Secondary Examination poses to an examinee. If the President decides favourably, he shall indicate what else is required to be done by the student for completion of formalities, both legal and academic, thereby making herself fully geared up to face such challenge. The President, I have no doubt, would act expeditiously and hence no time frame is fixed for complying with this order. 11. I may observe before parting that the request as contained in this order has been made in view of the peculiar features of the case, as noticed above in paragraph 9 supra, and this order is not to be treated as a precedent. 12. The writ petition stands disposed of, without order for costs. 13. Urgent photostate certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, may be furnished expeditiously.