Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 710 (KAR)

Kumari Sharmila v. State of Karnataka

2011-07-19

N.K.PATIL

body2011
Judgment :- Patil, J 1. Though this matter is posted in orders list, with the consent of the Learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 4, the same is taken up for final disposal. 2. Petitioner is a student prosecuting here studies in X standard. She has sought for quashing the memorandum endorsement dated 3rd June 2011, bearing No. A7 (N-9)/2011 PaFaPra/26/2011-12, vide Annexure — H. Further, she has sought for a mandamus, directing the second respondent to declare/announce the result of the petitioner in respect of SSLC Examination, taken up by her vide Registration No. 20110208972, conducted in the month of April 2011, by the second respondent/Board. 3. The only grievance of the petitioner in the instant case is that, she was admitted to the fifth respondent/School and she has been prosecuting her studies from I Std to X Std, and as per the examination curriculum issued in the respect of the SSLC Examination for the month of April 2011, she paid the examination fee, but the fifth respondent/School has not forwarded the same for issuing the Hall ticket to the petitioner, to appear for the Examination. At this stage, petitioner approached the fourth respondent and apprised of her grievance. The fourth respondent, in turn, after hearing the petitioner and her parents, requested the Board to issue the Hall ticket to enable her to appear for the SSLC examination conducted during the month of April 2011. Accordingly, the second respondent issued the Hall ticket bearing registration No. 20110208972 to the petitioner, for appearing in the SSLC Examination, conducted during the month of April 2011. Accordingly, she appeared for all the subjects of the SSLC Examination and was eagerly waiting for the announcement of the results, But, to her surprise, her result was not announced on the ground that, the fifth respondent/School had not processed forwarded the requisite information for being eligible to appear for the said Examination on the ground that there was shortage of attendance of the petitioner, without any justification, the second respondent, on the basis of the communication sent by the fifth respondent, has issued the impugned endorsement, withholding the result of the SSLC Examination, attended by the petitioner. With this background, the petitioner has approached this court for redressal of her grievance, seeking appropriate relief as stated supra. 4. With this background, the petitioner has approached this court for redressal of her grievance, seeking appropriate relief as stated supra. 4. After careful perusal of the impugned endorsement dated 3rd June 2011, issued by second respondent, vide Annexure-H, it appears that, the petitioner did not possess requisite attendance for appearance in the SSLC Examination. She was supposed to have 75% attendance, i.e., minimum of 160 days out of 213 days of Scholl and the Board could give exemption for a period of 30 days. But,, it appears, the petitioner was present only 53 days and even if 30 days grace period were to be added she would have attendance of 83days as against 160 days, But , without any Authenticated documents regarding the shortage of attendance of the petitioner, the second respondent has accepted the theory of the fifth respondent/School and without affording any opportunity to the petitioner/parents of the petitioner, and proceeded to issue the impugned endorsement ex-parte, in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. It is the specific case of the petitioner that, she has, in fact, appeared for all the classes regularly and has not, at any point of time, discontinued nor made other to absent themselves for the classes. It is the case of the parents of the petitioner that, due to the financial constraints, they are not in a position to meet the demand made by the fifth respondent/School. For non-payment of donation, ultimately the petitioner is made victim of the circumstances, in spite of the fundamental right to Education to every citizen of the Country as enshrined under Article 21-A of the Constitution of India, upto 14 years. Further, it is pertinent to note that, as per second proviso to Section 4 of the Right of Children to Free and compulsory Education Act 2009, a child so admitted to elementary education shall be entitled to free education till completion of elementary education , even after fourteen years. This aspect of the matter has neither been looked into nor considered before issuing the impugned endorsement. It is very unfortunate to note that the second respondent, the Director of Karnataka Higher Secondary Education Examination Board, being the competent authority and guardian of the students who are studying in the respective faculties, has proceeded to issue the impugned endorsement. This aspect of the matter has neither been looked into nor considered before issuing the impugned endorsement. It is very unfortunate to note that the second respondent, the Director of Karnataka Higher Secondary Education Examination Board, being the competent authority and guardian of the students who are studying in the respective faculties, has proceeded to issue the impugned endorsement. At best, the said Authority might have conducted thorough enquiry regarding the case and found out as to whether there was actually any shortage of attendance or not. Without calling for the attendance register and other relevant documents, from the School authorities and without knowing the veracity of otherwise of the communications, simply on the basis of the communications/correspondences placed before him, has proceeded to issue the impugned endorsement, without taking into consideration the fact that it is the life and death question of the petitioner, who has taken up SSLC examination, hailing from a very remote village. But, the fourth respondent has rightly looked into the grievance of the petitioner and exercising his power and discretion, has directed to issue the Hall ticket to the petitioner, to enable her to appear for the SSLC Examination, conducted during April, 2011. This relevant aspect has neither been considered nor appreciated by that, at any stretch of imagination, the impugned endorsement issued by the second respondent cannot be sustained and is liable to be set-aside, at the threshold. 5. Further, it can be seen that the communication regarding shortage of attendance pointed out by the fifth respondent to appear for the SSLC Examination, is not supported by any authenticated credible document to establish that there is, in fact, any shortage of attendance. Mere communication that the petitioner did not possess the required attendance itself is not the criteria to deny the petitioner to take up the SSLC Examination. This aspect has been rightly dealt with by the fourth respondent and permitted the petitioner to appear for the Examination. Whereas the same has not been looked into nor considered not taken note by the second respondent in its proper perspective, while issuing the impugned endorsement. Therefore, the impugned communication is liable to be set-aside on this ground also. 6. This aspect has been rightly dealt with by the fourth respondent and permitted the petitioner to appear for the Examination. Whereas the same has not been looked into nor considered not taken note by the second respondent in its proper perspective, while issuing the impugned endorsement. Therefore, the impugned communication is liable to be set-aside on this ground also. 6. Further, it must be noted that, the Central and State Governments, in consultation with the academicians and experts in the field, have introduced several innovative schemes to taken care, protect and encourage the rural students to get pre-primary, primary and secondary education to enable them to be able and compete with the urban students. Lot of measures are taken by the Government to provide free elementary education even beyond 14 years to all the children, who are the national resource of this country and are the hopes of tomorrow. Further, to encourage the children to go to school, particularly rural mass to attend the classes, Government is providing various facilities such as mid-day meal, free uniforms, free note books, text books, bicycles, etc. When this is the order of the day, the competent authorities who are the executants / functionaries of these Schemes have to bear in mind the main aim and object of introduction of such schemes and see that they are executed and achieved in the true letter and spirit, as otherwise it would not serve the purpose for which they are introduced. 7. Further, it must be noted that the second respondent, being the competent authority and the guardian, ought to have gone into the matter to its root and decided the matter consciously. When a case of this kind ahs come to his notice, the said Authority, ought to have taken effective steps to find out the truth and see that the career of the students is not affected in any manner apart from her emotional quotient, only because of the financial constraints of her parents. It is also the duty of the second respondent to encourage, motive and reform the students at the grassroots level and must have a great vision and mission in achieving the aim and object. Any wrong decision taken would definitely affect the EQ of the students and also the parents apart from sending wrong signal to the society. It is also the duty of the second respondent to encourage, motive and reform the students at the grassroots level and must have a great vision and mission in achieving the aim and object. Any wrong decision taken would definitely affect the EQ of the students and also the parents apart from sending wrong signal to the society. Any number of schemers would be rendered futile, it they are not properly executed and implemented in it s true sense and the very purpose of the Schemes would be defeated. 8. In the case of hand, the petitioner is a student hailing from one of the remotest villages and with her will power, dedication and conviction, has persuaded her parents to permit her to prosecute her studies inspite of their severe financial constraints. The second respondent ought to have borne in mind this aspect, while issuing the impugned endorsement. 9. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the shortage of attendance of the petitioner, if any pointed out by the fifth respondent School is dispensed with, in the interest of justice and equity, as a exception and shall not be made a precedent in respect of other cases. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition, filed by petitioner is allowed in part. The impugned endorsement dated 3rd June 2011 bearing No. A7(N-9)/2011-PaFaPra/26/2011-12, issued by the second respondent, vide Annexure-H, is hereby set aside. The second respondent is directed to announce the result of the petitioner who has appeared for the SSLC Examination conducted in the month of April 2011 with Register No. 20110208972, (copy of the Hall Ticket is produced as Annexure-C to the Writ Petition), as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance for respondents 1 to 4, within four weeks from today.