JUDGMENT : Shivakant Prasad, J. 1. The petitioner’s daughter Mousumi Murmu a student of Shatavisha Public School, situtated at Maliya, Haripal, Brahmanpara, District-Hooghly, herein after referred to as said School, affiliated to the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations, New Delhi (I.C.S.E.) School code W.B. 274 was a candidate for I.C.S.E. Examination 2016 scheduled on and from 29th February, 2016. 2. The petitioner states that, the said School authority duly filled up registration Form for I.C.S.E. (Indian Certificate of School Examination) 2016 and received the registration fees Rs. 5,000/- on 13.4.2015 and Rs. 3,800/- as Examination Fee (I.C.S.E.) 2016 on 13.7.2015 and duly issued receipts to this effect to Mousumi Murmu. 3. On 05.02.2016 the said School authority being the respondents Nos. 5, 6 and 7 informed the petitioner that the name of petitioner’s daughter Mousumi Murmu was not registered with I.C.S.E. Board for I.C.S.E. Examination 2016 and she was not allowed to sit for the ensuing I.C.S. Examination to be commenced on and from 29.02.2016 and that School authority have received a E-mail communication from the said I.C.S.E. Board on 2nd February, 2016 and her name is not found in I.C.S. Examination 2016 list. 4. It appears from said E-mail that the said School authority informed the said I.C.S.E. Board authority and requested them to register the name of the petitioner’s daughter considering her future and academic career. In the said mail the respondent School authority admitted that the School authority registered the name of the student, Mousumi Murmu but not checked the list of the candidates which were sent to the said Board or Council and due to said mistake on the part of the said School authority the petitioner’s daughter is the victim and she is not in a position to appear in the said I.C.S. Examination 2016. But the said Council vide E-mail dated 2nd February, 2016 regretted the same. 5. On 06.02.2016 and 07.02.2016 the petitioner made representations before the respondent nos. 2 and 5 requesting them to consider the case of her daughter very sympathetically and provide her I.D. No./registration number and admit card so that his daughter Mousumi Murmu can appear in the ensuring I.C.S. Examination 2016 but of no effect. 5. On 06.02.2016 and 07.02.2016 the petitioner made representations before the respondent nos. 2 and 5 requesting them to consider the case of her daughter very sympathetically and provide her I.D. No./registration number and admit card so that his daughter Mousumi Murmu can appear in the ensuring I.C.S. Examination 2016 but of no effect. Accordingly, petitioner prayed for an order directing the respondent authorities to register the name of Mousumi Murmu daughter of the petitioner and allow her to sit for ensuring I.C.S. Examination 2016 and issue admit card considering her future academic career. 6. It appears from said representation of the petitioner dated 6th February, 2016 that the said School authority now trying to bypass their responsibility and requested the petitioner to take refund of the said registration fee and examination fee but the said School authority cannot ignore their responsibility due to their laches and petitioner’s daughter will lose two valuable academic year for which she has no fault and the said School authority is trying to avoid their responsibility. As such, petitioner informed the matter to the local police station on 10.02.2016 which has been registered as G.D.E. No. 796 of 2016. 7. Accordingly, the petitioner prayed for direction upon the respondents authorities specially the respondent nos. 1 to 4 to register the name of the petitioner’s daughter namely, Mousumi Murmu and provide her I.D. number/registration number and issue admit card forthwith by allowing her to sit for ensuing I.C.S. Examination 2016 commencing on and from 29.02.2016. 8. Mr. Sanjoy Kumar Baid learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 contended that petitioner’s daughter Mousumi Murmu was not registered by the Council at all. It would be evident that Mousumi Murmu could not have been in the said School from Nursery till Class-X and is from a feeder School of the respondent no. 7. The truth can only be elucidated if the respondent no. 7 discloses the total strength of the School, the total built up area of each class and the number of students in each class. The respondent no. 7 had produced the Attendance Register of Class-IX wherefrom it was evident that each class had around three sections, and more than 50 students in each class. 9. It is submitted by Mr. Amitava Das learned counsel for the respondent no. The respondent no. 7 had produced the Attendance Register of Class-IX wherefrom it was evident that each class had around three sections, and more than 50 students in each class. 9. It is submitted by Mr. Amitava Das learned counsel for the respondent no. 7 School that there are 154 candidates who were in the roll of the School eligible for appearing for the 2016 examination and their names were sent to the Council for registration after filling up the registration form and uploaded to the portal of I.C.S.E. in presence of the respective candidates in the period 01.8.2014 to 15.9.2014. It appears from the record of the School that amongst the said 154 candidates Ms. Mousumi Murmu the daughter of the writ petitioner is appearing as serial no. 9 in the said list of 154 candidates who was present at the time of uploading the registration to the portal of I.C.S.E. form and the same was scanned with the uploaded form including the photograph of the said Mousumi was also scanned which was shown in the computer in green colour “Successfully saved.” 10. The School authority has paid registration charges for the said 154 candidates @ Rs. 250/- for each candidate evident from the receipt issued by the said Council dated 12.9.2014. 11. Mr. Chiranjib Rakshit, Assistant Teacher of the concerned School who used to upload the registration form to the portal of I.C.S.E. and send it to the Council in presence of the respective students had reported to the School authority that there is no mistake in the check list. 12. It is also submitted that after sending the said registration charges two student namely Ms. Rinku Rana and Asfakullah had withdrawn their names from the I.C.S.E. Examination in the year 2016. Therefore, the School authority is obliged to pay examination charges to the Council for 152 students from the said list of 154 candidates. Accordingly, the School authority had paid examination charges for the year 2016 for the said 152 candidates @ Rs. 1000/- for each candidates, a total sum of Rs. 1,52,000/- on 09.9.2015. The Council has issued a receipt towards such payment of Rs. 1,52,000/-. 13. Subsequently, at the time of internal assessment of the marks of the candidates it was detected that the name of Ms. 1000/- for each candidates, a total sum of Rs. 1,52,000/- on 09.9.2015. The Council has issued a receipt towards such payment of Rs. 1,52,000/-. 13. Subsequently, at the time of internal assessment of the marks of the candidates it was detected that the name of Ms. Mousumi Murmu has not been properly uploaded to the portal of I.C.S.E. for registration due to technical error and immediately on such detection, the School authority informed by E-mail dated 01.02.2016 to the Council inter alia requesting the Council to permit her to appear for the said examination. 14. On receipt of the said E-mail dated 01.02.2016 the Assistant Secretary, I.C.S.E. informed the School that there is no data in the name Mousumi Murmu of the School available in the Council’s system and therefore, the candidate was not registered to appear for the I.C.S.E. Examination, 2016. 15. Thereafter, the School authority as well as the guardian of the student made several representation and requested to the Council for registering the name of the said Ms. Mousumi Murmu to appear in the I.C.S.E. Examination, 2016 list and they have also agreed to pay further fees and fine. 16. Since the Council was not inclined to register the name of Ms. Mousumi Murmu a bona fide student of the School from Nursery to Class-X, the father of the said Mousumi Murmu was compelled to file the present writ application. 17. The said writ application was moved on 23.02.2016 when the Council for the School prayed for an opportunity to produce the documents pertaining to the continuous study of the student being the daughter of the writ petitioner. On such prayer of the School, this Court was pleased to direct the School to produce documents pertaining to the continuous study of the student. 18. Pursuant to the said direction, the School authority produced the original documents pertaining to the continuous study of the student in the School from Class - Nursery to Class-X. The writ petitioner also has annexed additional documents pertaining to the continuous study of the student by way of supplementary affidavit. Considering those documents, this Court was satisfied that the candidate, Ms. Mousumi Murmu has been able to make out a prima facie case for being allowed to appear at the I.C.S.E. Examination 2016 subject to the rider the result of the candidate shall not be published without the leave of the Court. 19. Considering those documents, this Court was satisfied that the candidate, Ms. Mousumi Murmu has been able to make out a prima facie case for being allowed to appear at the I.C.S.E. Examination 2016 subject to the rider the result of the candidate shall not be published without the leave of the Court. 19. Mr. Baid has invited my attention to the various regulations of ICSC Board as under:- Registration of Candidates: Candidates must be registered online in Class-IX, for the I.C.S.E. Examination. Registrations received after the due date will not be accepted. Correction of Entries: Schools will be able to view online, the entries of candidates registered from their School in Class-IX. Requests for corrections, if required, can be submitted on line, along with supporting documents, which need to be uploaded and submitted to the Council before 31st December without correction charges. Thereafter, up to the time Admission Cards are issued, all corrections are chargeable per candidate. Confirmation of Entries: Schools, after viewing the entries of candidates (who will be taking the Class X Examination) of their School, are required to confirm online that the entries are correct. This needs to be done by 30th September. 20. Mr. Baid further submitted that there are several checks and balances such as,- a. A candidate, in the rolls of an affiliated School, is registered with the Council in the month of September when the candidate is in Class-IX. This registration takes place sometime in August/September. b. After the entries are filled and sent to the Council, a printed copy thereof is circulated amongst all pupils for verification. All the candidates check the spelling of their names, parents’ names, date of birth and choice of subjects. This process is required to be completed by 31st of December. Correction, if any, with supporting documents are required to be uploaded on the portal of the Council. This is all completed when the candidate is in Class-IX. c. Thereafter when the candidate is in Class-X, the Council, on the basis of final entries so sent by the School, puts up on its portal Confirmation of Entries (hereinafter referred to as “COE”) reflecting the names of all the candidates who have been registered with the Council for the purpose of taking Board Examination the following year. c. Thereafter when the candidate is in Class-X, the Council, on the basis of final entries so sent by the School, puts up on its portal Confirmation of Entries (hereinafter referred to as “COE”) reflecting the names of all the candidates who have been registered with the Council for the purpose of taking Board Examination the following year. The confirmation of entries is put up on the portal of the Council sometime in August/September, when the candidate, as aforesaid, is in Class-X. d. The School upon receipt of Confirmation of Entries confirms the same by pressing on the icon “confirmed” if it finds everything in order. It is only thereafter that the School deposits examination fees of the candidates, whose names are confirmed in the COE put up by the Council and confirmed by the School. e. The portal of the Council is once again opened sometime in December to facilitate the School to feed therein the internal assessment mark of the candidates. 21. I do agree with the above submission of Mr. Baid that it is incredible that a School could have missed to notice that the name of the student had not been registered despite the entire class fulfilling the aforesaid formalities, and despite the aforesaid four occasions on which such a mistake could have been detected. 22. It is profitable to mention that the School authority purportedly send an E-mail to the Council only on 1st February, 2016 which on the face of it is incorrect for the following reasons:- (a) It is the School and/or students, who fills and uploads names for registration. (b) It is the School and/or students, who thereafter check the list for mistakes, if any. (c) It is the School and/or the students, who audit Confirmation of Entries sent by the Council. (d) It is the School and/or students who thereafter deposit the examination fees on the basis of COE. (e) It is the School who confirms the COE that is put up on the portal of the Council, by clicking a confirmation command on the Computer. (f) It is the School that confirming the COE, and only thereafter feeds online, the internal assessment marks of the candidate by the month of December when the candidate is in Class-X. 23. Thus, it is axiomatic from the above contentions of the respondent nos. (f) It is the School that confirming the COE, and only thereafter feeds online, the internal assessment marks of the candidate by the month of December when the candidate is in Class-X. 23. Thus, it is axiomatic from the above contentions of the respondent nos. 1 to 4 that the respondent School has failed to check the registration of the student namely Mousumi Murmu daughter of the petitioner by several checks and balances to ensure that the name of a candidate is not omitted even by mistake and it was undoubtedly a failure on the part of the School authority for not having checked at various stage for the registration of the name of student appearing for examination while depositing the examination fees because deposit of examination fees has to be on the basis of Confirmation of Entries sent by the Council and the School authority ought to have checked the list of mistake. 24. It is curious to note the conduct of the School authority who wrote to the petitioner being the father of the ward of the School that the amount deposited on behalf of the ward be refunded to him. It has caused great harassment to the petitioner which appears to me on the basis of the documents of the School itself produced by way of supplementary affidavit which clearly reflect that the petitioner’s daughter was a bona fide student of the School respondent since beginning and her name appeared at Sl. no. 9, therefore, for the mistake committed on the part of the School authority, the petitioner should not be allowed to suffer in her career. 25. Before parting with my decision, I make it clear that the Council for the I.C.S.E. may take appropriate check and balance against School respondent within the frame work of the I.C.S.E. regulations. 26. Ergo, in order to do justice, this Court is pleased to direct the respondent nos. 1 to 4 to publish the result and to issue certificate in favour of the petitioner within four weeks from the date of communication of the judgment to enable the student Mousumi Murmu to prosecute her studies. 27. 26. Ergo, in order to do justice, this Court is pleased to direct the respondent nos. 1 to 4 to publish the result and to issue certificate in favour of the petitioner within four weeks from the date of communication of the judgment to enable the student Mousumi Murmu to prosecute her studies. 27. Thus, the writ application is disposed of in the manner directed above with costs against the School authority for legal expenses incurred by the petitioner which must be paid by the School respondent to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of communication of this judgment. 28. Urgent certified photocopy of this Judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.