Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 429 (MP)

Priya Shukla v. Board of Secondary Education

2016-06-13

SANJAY YADAV

body2016
ORDER 1. Petitioners seek direction to respondent Board of Secondary Education to permit them to participate in 12th Class Examination 2015-2016. That the interim relief which was sought to participate in the main examination was turned down on 29.2.2016 taking into consideration that the examination were to commence from 1st March, 2016, and there was no time left for the respondents to have made immediate arrangements for permitting the petitioner to participate in said examination. However, the claim to appear in the examination is still alive because as informed by learned counsel for the parties that a supplementary examination are to commence from 5th July, 2016, and for that application are invited and the last date being 15th June, 2016. Therefore, the matter is instantly taken up. 2. Claim of the petitioners to appear in the 12th Class Examination was turned down vide communication dated 24.12.2015 as the gap between class 10th and 11th was found to be more than 1 year. Further, as borne out from the respective pleadings that, though such candidates cannot be allowed to appear as regular students but they can be permitted to appear as private students by converting them from regular to private. 3. Contention on behalf of the petitioner is that, immediately after the rejection of the candidature of the petitioners to appear as a regular candidate a letter was addressed on 10.1.2016 by Principal Gurukul Girls Higher Secondary School Sirmor, District Sidhi, to permit the petitioners to participate in the examination as private candidate. It is contended that thereafter another communication was made on 16.1.2016 which was duly received in the office of respondent Board. However, no action thereon was taken. Thereafter the petitioners individually filled the form online on 25.1.2016 but the petitioners were not allowed to appear even as a private candidate. 4. It is further pointed out that the respondents in their reply in paragraph 18 have stated “at the most, the Principal of the school (respondent No.3) could have exercised his option to convert the petitioners from regular students to private students. But such option was not exercised by the Principal. 4. It is further pointed out that the respondents in their reply in paragraph 18 have stated “at the most, the Principal of the school (respondent No.3) could have exercised his option to convert the petitioners from regular students to private students. But such option was not exercised by the Principal. Instead, the petitioners themselves submitted an application form for conversion which are available at pages 33 and 34 of the petition but these forms were not meant for the students/petitioners but were to be used by the Principal of the school by exercising the option of conversion of the petitioners from regular students to private students.” 5. It is contended that this statement made on behalf of the respondent is not in consonance to the material documents on record. It is urged that immediately after rejection of the petitioners candidature which was communicated on 24.12.2015, a request was made to Principal vide communication dated 10.1.2016 and 16.1.2016 requesting for conversion of petitioners status from regular to private student; however, no heed was paid by respondent Board. 6. A specific averment to that effect is being made in paragraph 5.3 which is not being disputed by respondent Board. There is no denial of fact that Board has not received the communication dated 10.1.2016 and 16.1.2016. Even the respondent Board is not justified in making a statement in paragraph 18 that Principal i.e. respondent No.3 has not exercised the option seeking conversion of the petitioner from regular to that of private student. 7. Since there is no bar that even a regular student who has suffered the gap of more than 1 year between class 10th and 11th can be permitted to appear as private student, respondent Board in the fact situation of the present case would be under obligation to permit the petitioners to appear as private students in the supplementary examination commencing on 5th July, 2016; however subject to petitioners fulfilling the other requisites qualification. 8. Petition is allowed to the extent above. Nityanand Mishra for petitioner; Rajesh Tiwari for respondents.