Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 486 (RAJ)

Dinesh Meena v. State of Rajasthan

2015-02-23

PRAKASH GUPTA, SUNIL AMBWANI

body2015
Judgment 1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The petitioners are students of Diploma in Engineering, pursuing their education in Jaipur Institute of Polytechnic and Technology Jaipur and Bharat Institute of Polytechnic and Sciences, which is a private institute. The last date of filling up the examination form for the first year was 08.03.2014, which was extended to 19.05.2014 with penalty of five times of the examination fees. The petitioners, however, did not fill up the examination form, and approached the Examination Body with the examination forms on 12.06.2014. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner for accepting their examination form, and for appearing in the examination, on the ground that there was no justification to allow the petitioners to submit examination form after expiry of the last date. The petitioners were given liberty to deposit the examination form, even after the due date with penalty. They, however, did not avail the opportunity. 3. It was submitted before learned Single Judge that in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6370/2014, the writ petitioners was permitted to submit the examination form. Learned Single Judge found that in that case, the petitioner went to deposit the fees within time. It was not accepted as it was offered in cash, and that he was asked to get demand draft, which was also prepared and presented on the same day, but the time when the demand draft was brought it was already 2.00 p.m. In such circumstances, considering the bonafides of the student, the interim order was passed. 4. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. 5. The petitioners filed this Special Appeal one day before the examinations were scheduled to be held. The Division Bench passed the order allowing the petitioners to provisionally appear in the examination on deposit of the examination fees. 6. We have perused the grounds of appeal, and the order passed by learned Single Judge, and do not find any reasons whatsoever given either by the petitioners or the Court, in allowing the appellants to provisionally appear in the examination. The appellants have now approached this Court for declaring their results. 7. 6. We have perused the grounds of appeal, and the order passed by learned Single Judge, and do not find any reasons whatsoever given either by the petitioners or the Court, in allowing the appellants to provisionally appear in the examination. The appellants have now approached this Court for declaring their results. 7. In order to appreciate the arguments that all the appellants belong to a poor state of society, and that they were in financial crises, in which they could not deposit the examination fee, we have perused the pleadings in the writ petition as well as grounds on which the order of learned Single Judge has been challenged. We do not find that except a bold plea of financial crises, nothing further is pleaded nor any material was brought on record, for condoning the delay, and allowing the petitioners to provisionally appear in the examinations. 8. We do not find that the petitioners had cared to even make a representation, pleaded financial difficulty, giving their background or family conditions, which may justify to grant the relief, to declare the results. 9. The examination schedules are fixed in advance, and that the dates for filling up the examination forms are known to the students. If there was any difficulty in arranging for examination fees, the appellants could have availed the extended date with penalty, and in case of any further difficulty, they could have filed a representation giving out circumstances for deposit of the examination form on a later date. 10. We find that the Board had extended the date to submit examination form and fee from 08.03.2014 to 19.05.2014, and that the appellants had approached the Board with long delay on 12.06.2014 without any representation, to allow them either to deposit the examination fee, and to accept their examination form. 11. The Special Appeals are devoid of merit, and are accordingly dismissed. A copy of this order will be placed in both connected files.