Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 302 (MP)

POONAM PATTAIYA v. BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION

2017-02-28

A.K.JOSHI, R.S.JHA

body2017
ORDER : R.S. JHA, J. 1. The petitioners have filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondent authorities to permit all the petitioners to appear in the Supplementary Examination of the D.E1.Ed., first and second year course respectively by treating the attempt as a first chance. 2. The facts on the basis of which the present petition has been filed are that the petitioner nos. 1 to 6 have taken admission in the D.E1.Ed. course and at present are studying in the second year of the said course in the respondent no.2 institution, whereas petitioner nos. 7 to 10 are studying in the first year of the D.E1.Ed. course in the aforesaid institution, which is a private unaided institution and is said to be recognized by the NCTE. 3. Undisputedly, all the petitioners, whether studying in the first year or the second year, were unable to clear the first year or second year main examination, as the case may be, in the first attempt and obtained supplementary. It is also averred in the petition that the petitioners could not appear in the next succeeding supplementary examination on account of non-communication of the date of the examination to the petitioners. In the present petition the petitioners have also stated that it is not a matter of dispute that the petitioners are denied opportunity to appear in the aforesaid supplementary examination because the petitioners did not complete the requisite number of teaching days. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that denial of such opportunity to the petitioners is contrary to law as the petitioners have a right and are entitled for two opportunities to appear in the supplementary examination for clearing the subject. It is submitted that the petitioners could not appear in the first supplementary examination which was conducted in the last week of November 2016 on account of the fact that they were not in touch with the respondent no.2 institution and were living in their respective interior remote villages and the management of the respondent no.2 institution did not properly inform the petitioners of the last date of submission of the examination form or the precise date of the supplementary examination to be conducted by the respondent PSC. It is stated that the schedule of the examination was not published in the newspaper nor any intimation was sent to the petitioners. It is stated that the schedule of the examination was not published in the newspaper nor any intimation was sent to the petitioners. It is stated that when the petitioners contacted the respondent no.2 institution sometime in the second week of December 2016, they learnt that the last date for filling the supplementary examination form had expired on 8.12.2016. It is alleged that due to carelessness on the part of the respondent no.2 institution, the petitioners could not fill up the examination form or appear in the supplementary examination for clearing the subject. It is stated that the petitioners thereafter collectively filed a representation before the authorities but were informed by the institution that they cannot be permitted to appear in the Supplementary Examination because of the fact that the chance to do so that was available to them in December 2016 had already lapsed. 5. It is submitted that the petitioners are entitled to appear in the supplementary examination as, in accordance with the clarification given by the Board of Secondary Education, a student has a right to clear the first or second year examination by availing two chances; first in the main examination and the second chance through supplementary examination. It is submitted that as the petitioners have availed of the chance to appear in the main examination and were not able to clear the same, they are entitled to a second chance by appearing in the supplementary examination which is being denied to them, hence appropriate directions be issued in this regard. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length. The issue as to whether the petitioners can avail more than two chances to clear the first or second year D.E1.Ed. examination has already been considered and decided by this Court in the judgment reported in the case of Ram Kishore Yadav and others v. M.P. Board of Secondary Education and Others, 2016 (4) MPLJ 658 , wherein this Court has held that the Board has the right to limit the attempts to clear an examination to two chances and no person has a right to claim that he should be given three or unlimited chances to clear the examination. 7. 7. Quite apart from the above, it is also pertinent to note that this Court in the case of Ankita Shukla v. State of M.P. and another, 2016 (4) MPLJ 478 , has followed the aforesaid decision in the case of Ram Kishore Yadav (supra) and while doing so has also affirmed and upheld the validity of the decision of the respondent Board of Secondary Education dated 17.12.2012 whereby the Board has taken a decision to the effect that from the session 2013 onwards, students would be entitled to avail of only two continuous opportunities to clear the D.E1.Ed. Examination, first in the main examination and second in the next succeeding supplementary examination. The amendment made by the Board on 17.12.2012 has been duly reproduced in paragraph 14 of the aforesaid decision rendered in the case of Ankita Shukla (supra) and is in the following terms:- c- 1 fcUnqa dzekad 6 & l= 2012&2013 ls Mh0,M0 izFke o"kZ ds Nk=ksa dks ijh{kk mRrh.kZ djus gsrq vc dsoy fujUrj nks volj eq[; rFkk vuqxkeh ijh{kk iznku fd;s tkosaxsA ;fn vH;FkhZ nks fujUrj nks voljksa dk YkkHk ysus ds mijkar Hkh izFke o"kZ vFkok f}rh; o"kZ dh ijh{kk esa vuqRrh.kZ jgrk gS rks vH;FkhZ dks iqu% izos'k ysdj fu/kkZfjr ikB~;dze iw.kZ djuk gksxkA 2- fcUnq dzekad 9 & Mh0,M0 ijh{kk esa dksbZ Hkh O;fDr Lok/;k;h mEehnokj ds :i esa ugha cSB ldsxk fdUrq izFke ,oa f}rh; o"kZ ds fu;fer izf'k{k.kkFkhZ dks tks izFke volj dh ijh{kk esa mRrh.kZ gks x;k gks] ;k U;wure mifLFkfr dk izfr'kr iwjk djus ds i'pkr~ Hkh fdUgh vifjgk;Z dkj.kksa ls ijh{kk esa u cSB ldk gks rks mls Lok/;k;h :i ls ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gksus gsrq mlh l= dh vuqxkeh ijh{kk esa dsoy ,d volj vkSj fn;k tkosxkA mijksDr ¼c½ vuqlkj la'kksf/kr vkns'k leLr 'kkldh;@v'kkldh; MkbV laLFkku ,oa izf'k{k.kfFkZ;ksa ij vkxkeh o"kZ 2013 dh Mh0,M+0 ijh{kk ls ykxw gksaxsA 8. In the aforesaid two decisions, this Court has clearly held that a student is required to clear the D.E1.Ed examination and for doing so, he would be entitled to only two opportunities and not more. 9. In the aforesaid two decisions, this Court has clearly held that a student is required to clear the D.E1.Ed examination and for doing so, he would be entitled to only two opportunities and not more. 9. When confronted with the aforesaid two decisions, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are entitled to two chances and as the petitioners, in the instant case, have only availed one chance in the main examination and could not appear in the next succeeding supplementary examination on account of the fact that they were not informed about the same therefore, in accordance with said decision of the Board dated 17.12.2012 they are entitled to a second chance to appear in the oncoming supplementary examination, which would also not violate the clause of the NCTE Regulations which requires the petitioners to complete the D.E1.Ed. course within three years. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on this issue as well and we are of the considered opinion that the interpretation and contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard cannot be accepted and deserves to be rejected firstly, in view of the fact that such a contention has already been considered and rejected by this Court in the aforesaid two decisions of this Court and secondly, on account of the fact that a bare reading of the decision of the Board dated 17.12.2012 makes it abundantly clear that the Board has specifically and clearly prescribed that from the Sessions 2012-13 onwards D.E1.Ed students would get only two opportunities to pass the first as well as the second year D.E1.Ed. Examination, that is, in the main examination and the immediately following supplementary examination. The Board in the said decision has specifically mentioned the word "Nirantar" which means continuous and clearly means that the two attempts provided for passing the examination are the main examination and the immediately following supplementary examination and not any other supplementary examination conducted thereafter. 11. Examination, that is, in the main examination and the immediately following supplementary examination. The Board in the said decision has specifically mentioned the word "Nirantar" which means continuous and clearly means that the two attempts provided for passing the examination are the main examination and the immediately following supplementary examination and not any other supplementary examination conducted thereafter. 11. In view of the aforesaid, as the petitioners did not avail of the chance for clearing the supplementary examination which was held immediately after the main examination and have admittedly exhausted the two chances to pass the examination, therefore, they cannot now be permitted to take up nor are they entitled to appear in the next supplementary examination as the same is not contiguous and continuous with the main examination which is the requirement of the decision of the Board and, if permitted would amount to giving them a third chance to pass the examination which is not permissible in law. 12. It is also pertinent to note that this Court in the case of R. K. Yadav (supra) has specifically held that an institution imparting D.E1.Ed and B.Ed courses having recognition is required to obtain affiliation from the Board of Secondary Education and in such circumstances the Board of Secondary Examination has the power and authority to limit the chances to clear the examination and that such a stipulation by the Board is not in conflict with the Regulation of the NCTE. 13. Similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court at Gwalior in the case of Sanjay Jaitwar and others v. State of M.P. and others, (W.P No. 5955/2016) dated 26.12.2016 and it has been reiterated that the executive decision of the respondent Board dated 17.12.2012 is not inconsistent with Clause-2 of the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulations of 2014') and that both can co-exist thereby clarifying that while the duration of the D.E1.Ed course would be three years as prescribed by Clause-2 of the Regulations of 2014, however a person prosecuting the same would only get two continuous chances to pass each year of the course as per the decision of the Board dated 17.12.2012. The discussion in this regard is contained in paras 6.1 to 6.8 of the aforesaid decision. 14. The discussion in this regard is contained in paras 6.1 to 6.8 of the aforesaid decision. 14. The same view has been reiterated by the Gwalior Bench of this Court in the case of Sheela v. The Board of Secondary Education and others, (W.P No. 8643/2016) decided on 19.12.2016 relying on the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Ankita Shukla (supra). 15. Quite apart from the above, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent no.2 institution was required to give a notice and inform the petitioners about the date of examination is heard only to be rejected as there is no provision casting any such duty or obligation upon the institution and as now a days the entire examination programme is published on the Net and notice board and is available for all concerned for information and perusal. As per the averment made by the petitioners themselves, they were not in contact with the respondent no.2 institution and, therefore, they did not come to know about the date of the supplementary examination due to lapse on their own part whereas they should have been attending classes which they have admittedly not done. 16. Though no factual data in that regard has been placed before us by the learned counsel for the petitioners, however in view of the averments made in the petition we would also like to clarify that the Regulations framed by the NCTE statutorily prescribe the minimum working days excluding the period of examination as well as the minimum number of days for practical teaching and skill development that are necessary for appearing in the examination and that this period prescribed by the Regulations has been held to be mandatory by this Court in the decision rendered in the case of Sheetla Shiksha Mahavidhyalay v. State of M.P. and others (W.P No. 6716/2008) decided on 9.7.2008 which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya and others v. Subhash Rahangdale and others, (2012) 2 SCC 425 . 17. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the petition filed by the petitioners, being meritless is accordingly dismissed.