Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 243 (MP)

Sachin Kumar Rai v. State of M. P.

2018-02-28

H.P.SINGH, R.S.JHA

body2018
ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this petition praying the following reliefs : “(i) That, the Hon’ble High Court be pleased to call the entire record of the examination and opportunity provided to the petitioner and result thereof and direct the respondents No. 2 and 3 to declare the result of the petitioner for one subject i.e. Sec. Lang. Eng. and ITS Teach and issue modified marks sheet within a time limit and compensate the petitioner for the negligence in taking decision on his representation. (ii) That, any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper, may also be passed in the facts and circumstances of the case as also in the interest of justice. (iii) That, the cost of the petition may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who had taken admission in the D.Ed. Course in the Year 2012–13 had appeared in the Examination of the Second Year pursuant to the direction of this Court, but the petitioner’s result has not been declared, therefore, appropriate direction be issued to the respondents to do so. 3. From a perusal of the record as well as the document Annexure P-1, it is evident that the petitioner had previously approached before this Court on two occasions and this is the third approach of the petitioner. 4. It is apparent from paragraph 3 of the Annexure P-1 dated April, 2016 that the petitioner took admission in the Course in the Year 2012–13 and cleared the First Year of the said course. The document further indicates that thereafter in the Year 2013–14 he appeared in the Second Year Examination, but was declared fail in English and was again given opportunity to clear the same, but he failed to do so. 4. Taking the aforesaid aspect into consideration and in view of the provisions of the instructions relating to Examination issued by the respondent/Board dated 17.12.2012, as the petitioner is entitled to only two consecutive attempts to clear the Examination and as he has failed to do so, the petitioner’s representation which was directed to be considered by this Court by the order passed in Writ Petition No. 9162/2015 has been rejected by the authorities. 5. 5. It is observed that the provisions of the instructions dated 17.12.2012 and the validity thereof came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Smt. Ankita Shukla v. State of M.P. and others [2016 (4) MPLJ 478], Ram Kishore Yadav and others v. M.P. Board of Secondary Education and others [2016 (4) MPLJ 658], Poonam Pattaiya and others v. Board of Secondary Education [2017 (3) MPLJ 711], Sanjay Jaitwar and others v. State of M.P. and ors, 2017 (2) MPLJ 72 , Sheela v. Board of Secondary Education [ 2017 (2) MPLJ 303 ], Poonam Pattaiya and others v. Board of Secondary Education (Writ Petition No. 5452/2017 decided on 25.4.2017) and Vineeta Prajapati and others v. Board of Secondary Education and connected petitions (Writ Petition No. 7910/2017 decided on 26.10.2017), wherein this Court while upholding the validity of the aforesaid stipulations in the Circular has held that Two Years D.Ed. Course has to be cleared by a student within a maximum period of three years, and that for clearing the first and second year examination, a candidate is entitled to only two consecutive attempts and on his failure to do so, the only recourse open to such a candidate is to take up fresh admission and pursue the course. 6. In view of the aforesaid decision of this Court, we do not find any merit in the case of the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents, specifically in view of the fact that the order passed by the respondents/authorities in April, 2016, Annexure P-1 rejecting the petitioner’s representation which was considered pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 9162/2015 has not been challenged or assailed by the petitioner and has become final. 7. The petition filed by the petitioner being meritless is accordingly dismissed.