AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.D. Sharma, J.—Through the medium of this writ petition issuance of writ of Certiorari is prayed for quashing Order No. F(ExCC) 50 of
1999 dated 4.2.1999. The case of the petitioner in brief is that she in the year 199798 passed Higher Secondary PartI examination under Roll No.
101396. The result of this examination was declared in the month of May 1998 and as per certificate issued by the Principal Govt. Higher
Secondary School, Mubark Mandi, Jammu (Achievement in academic and vocational subjects) she was shown to have passed by obtaining 239
marks in total. The petitioner took admission in Higher Secondary PartII class in the same school on 5.8.98 and had been attending the course as a
regular student under Roll No. 598. In the month of October 1998, she applied before respondent2 for seeking permission to take part in Higher
Secondary PartII examination and her application was routed through respondent5. In the month of January, 1999, application form submitted by
the petitioner was returned by the Joint Secretary (Exams) J&K Board of School Education on the plea that she had not passed 11th class (Higher
Secondary PartI examination) as she had failed in two subjects i.e. English and Home Science. She made a representation dated 29.1.99 before
respondent3 through respondent5 who vide annexureD had recommended her case. Respondent No. 4 rejected the application of the petitioner
vide his order dated 4.2.99 and debarred her to appear in Higher Secondary PartII which had to take place with effect from 13.3.99. The
petitioner has challenged order No. F(ExCC) 50 of 1999 dated 4.2.1999 on the ground that she had taken admission in Higher Secondary PartII
class and undergone studies and now for no fault of her she was being debarred to appear in the examination and was being asked to clear higher
secondary partII class. Respondents cannot be allowed to take benefit of their own wrongs and even if the petitioner had failed in Higher
Secondary PartI examination, even then, she was allowed to pursue the studies in the higher class, but she for no fault of her can be made to
sacrifice two precious years of her life. The result of Higher Secondary PartI examination was declared in the month of May 1998 and the
Achievement Card was despatched in the month of June/July 1998.
Objections have been filed by the respondents wherein it is pleaded that the examination of 11th class (Higher Secondary PartI) is conducted by
the School authorities regularly on the basis of papers set by the Board of School Education. The answer scripts are evaluated by the School
authorities themselves. After the completion of evaluation process each result is countersigned by the Board authorities. The school authorities had
issued the Achievement Card showing the petitioner to have secured 47 marks in General English and 32 marks in Home Science, but the Broad
authorities when checking at the stage of countersigning, it was found that she had not passed in General English and Home Science. She was
required to secure 49 marks in General English and 39 Marks in Home Science as against 47 marks secured by her in General English and 32
marks secured in Home Science. Assistant Secretary of the Board of School Education vide his letter dated Jan. 20, 1999 had informed
respondent5 of this position. The petitioner had no cause against respondents No. 1 to 4 and could have the grievance against respondent No. 5
who had wrongly shown her to have passed in these two subjects. School authorities had committed an error because they permitted the
petitioner's admission in class XII when she was not eligible. School authorities had given permission to ineligible candidate and no writ of
mandamus can be issued against respondents No. 1 to 4.
In the objections filed on behalf of respondent5, he has pleaded that he had issued Achievement Card in favour of the petitioner showing the
marks which she had obtained, but upon verification of the result by the J&K State Board of School Education at the stage of countersigning, it
was found that the petitioner had not cleared two subjects namely, General English and Home Science. For having passed in these two subjects
she should have achieved 49 marks in General English and 39 marks in Home Science. It is also stated that the petitioner did not attend Higher
Secondary PartII class regularly with effect from 1.11.98. No writ can be issued against a statute and as per requirement of the statute in question,
the petitioner has not passed PartI Higher Secondary class examination.
Heard the arguments.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has stressed that petitioner has not to suffer for no fault of her because respondent5 had by issuing
Achievement Card in the examination in her favour showed her as a successful candidate and then granted the admission in the next class (Higher
Secondary PartII class). That equity is in favour of the petitioner and in case she is not allowed to take part in the examination which is starting
from March 13, 1999, but she will waste her two precious years of her life. Learned counsel has cited the cases of Km. Maxey Charan v.
Rohilkhand University, AIR 1992 Allahabad 122, Ku. Bharti Srivastava v. Jiwaji University, Gwalior, AIR 1989 MP 197, Basanta Kumar
Mohanty v. Utkal University, AIR 1990 Orissa 10 and Miss Sangeeta Srivastava v. Prof. U.N. Singh and others, AIR 1980 Delhi 27 and claimed
that the doctrine of equitable estoppel is applicable in the present case and respondents are debarred to pass any order whereby the petitioner
cannot be allowed to take part in the Higher Secondary PartII examination. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have contended that
the petitioner is ineligible candidate for XII class examination as according to the statute she has not passed 11th class. By mistake or inadvertence
in case respondent No. 5 had issued an achievement card showing therein that the petitioner had passed 11th class, that does not mean that
respondents No. 1 to 4 are required to be connected with the commission of mistake or an act of inadvertence because in the discharge of their
official functions, they have detected the mistake at an early time when the result had come for counter signing and pointed out the defect in the
month of January 1999. The petitioner was not attending the classes regularly, therefore, she could not be personally told about her ineligibility.
After hearing the respective contentions of the counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is held that the petitioner is not found
eligible to have passed Higher Secondary PartI examination in terms of the statutory criteria and thus she cannot claim to take part in the
examination of the next higher class (12th class). In the case of Km. Maxey Charan v. Rohikhand University (supra) Allahabad High Court had
given the petitioner the benefit of promissory estoppel when the mistake was committed by the University officials and on the basis of marks issued
in her favour, she had improved her position which could not be altered to her disadvantage after a lapse of more than two years. The peculiar
feature of the case was that the advantage gained by the petitioner in the case was on the express assurance given by the University which they had
sought to be annulled after a lapse of two years, but that is not the present case. No act can be attributed to respondents No. 1 to 4 which could
have given any assurance to the petitioner to change her position for the better. Rather, concerned officials of the Higher Secondary Board at the
time of countersigning the result detected the mistake or the mischief and they cannot be hold responsible for the act of respondent5. In the case of
Miss Sangeeta Srivastava (supra) applicability of the doctrine of equitable estoppel was allowed in educational qualification on the basis of inaction
by the University resulting in admission to noneligible candidates, but the facts of the case in hand are different and the principle laid down has no
application. Similarly, the law cited at the bar in the case of Ku. Bharti Srivastava v. Jiwaji University, Gwalior (supra) and Basant Kumar Mohanty
v. Utkal University (supra) have no application. On this view of the matter, it is therefore, held that there is no merit in this writ petition which is
accordingly dismissed.