Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 449 (UTT)

Pratibha Giri Goshwami v. State of Uttarakhand

2011-07-20

TARUN AGARWALA

body2011
ORDER : Delay in filing the rejoinder affidavit is condoned. The delay condonation application No. 7128 of 2011 is allowed. The rejoinder affidavit is taken on record. 2. Heard Mr. Ravi Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P. C. Bisht, the learned Brief Holder for the State and Smt. Seema Sah, the learned counsel for the respondent No.4. 3. The petitioner applied as a private candidate for the Intermediate Examination, which is conducted by the Uttarakhand Education Board, from Khalsa Girls Inter College, Haldwani, District Nainital. The last date for the submission of the form for a private candidate was 20th August 2009 and with late fee, the last date for admission was 24th August 2009. Rule 8(3) of the Uttarakhand Board of Education Rules, 2006 provides that the competent authority, after accepting the forms, should forward the same to the District Education Officer on or before 30th August and that the District Education Officer is required to forward the forms to the Board on or before 5th of September. 4. The petitioner submitted her form along with the late fee to the Principal of the College on 25th August, 2009, which was duly accepted by the principal and, thereafter, it was forwarded to the Board via the District Education Officer. 5. Based on the submission of the form, the admit card issued to the petitioner bearing roll No. 210486 and, on this basis, the petitioner appeared as a private candidate for the Intermediate Examination for the academic session 2009 -10 which was held sometimes in March and April, 2010. The petitioner appeared in all the papers from the center allotted to her and eagerly awaited for the declaration of the result. The results were declared by the Board sometime in June, 2010, but the petitioners result was not declared. The petitioner enquired and reached a stumbling block wherever she went and ultimately the petitioner was constrained to approach the writ Court for seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to declare her result. 6. The Uttarakhand Education Board has filed a counter affidavit contending that the form of the petitioner was scrutinized and it was found that the petitioner had submitted her form after the last date. Whereas the last date of the submission of the forms was 24th August, 2009, the petitioner had submitted her form on 25th August, 2009. 6. The Uttarakhand Education Board has filed a counter affidavit contending that the form of the petitioner was scrutinized and it was found that the petitioner had submitted her form after the last date. Whereas the last date of the submission of the forms was 24th August, 2009, the petitioner had submitted her form on 25th August, 2009. On this basis, the admission form was rejected on 21st May, 2010. The counter affidavit further reveals that the petitioner was intimated about the cancellation of her admission form by a letter dated 26th November, 2010. The respondent contends that since the admission form of the petitioner was rejected, her result could not be declared. 7. In the light of the aforesaid position, the Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and the Court is constrained to observe the appalling attitude of all the respondents in treating the matter so lightly. A whole year has been lost by the student for no fault of her. Admittedly, the petitioner submitted her form after the last date i.e. one day after the last date of submission of forms, but the said form was accepted by the Principal and forwarded to the Board via proper channel. The Court finds that on the acceptance of the form, the Board allotted a roll number on the basis of which, an admit card was issued by the Principal of the college, which allowed the petitioner to appear in the examination. The Court further finds that the petitioner appeared and gave all her papers and, till that date, no action was taken by the respondents. The Court cannot fathom and visualize the lackadaisical attitude on the part of the respondents in scrutinizing the form even after the examination was conducted. If the form had to be scrutinized, the respondent Board should have scrutinized the same before the issuance of the roll number or should have scrutinized the forms before the candidate gave the examination. But under no circumstances, the form could be rejected after the candidate gives the examination. That is not the essence contemplated under Rule 8(3) of the Rules. It is clear that the said provision is not mandatory and even though the last date for the submission of the form was 24th August, 2009, the applications were to be received by the Board on or before 5th of September, 2009. That is not the essence contemplated under Rule 8(3) of the Rules. It is clear that the said provision is not mandatory and even though the last date for the submission of the form was 24th August, 2009, the applications were to be received by the Board on or before 5th of September, 2009. In the present case, the application was received by the Principal on 25th August, 2009 and forwarded thereafter. The counter affidavit does not reveal that the form was received by the Board after 5th of September, 2009. 8. In the light of the aforesaid, the Court finds that the rejection of the petitioner— s form on 25th May, 2010 was wholly arbitrary and without application of mind and that the petitioner by that time had already given her examination. The respondents by not communicating the order and only communicating in November, 2010 to the petitioner indicates the attitude and the approach of the respondents in handling the whole matter justifying imposition of cost upon the Board. Nothing has been indicated by the respondents as to why the principal had accepted the form after the last date of submission of form. Nothing has come on record as to why the Education Board has not taken any action against the principal of the college for accepting the form after the last date. 9. In the light of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 21st May, 2010 rejecting the admission form of the petitioner is quashed and a writ of mandamus is issued commanding the Uttarakhand Education Board (respondent No. 4) to declare the result of the petitioner of the Intermediate Examination 2009-10 within two weeks from the date of the production of a certified copy of the order and to pay a cost of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand only) for the loss and harassment suffered by the petitioner which amount will also be paid to the petitioner within the same period. Upon failure of the payment of the said amount, it would be open to the petitioner to make an appropricate application in the present writ petition for the recovery of the said amount as arrears of land revenue. Petition allowed.