Parminder Kaur vs Punjab School Education Board

N.K. Sodhi, J.—This order will dispose of seven writ petitions No. 3245, 3323, 3329, 3330, 3357, 3409 and 3410 of 2000 in which common questions of taw and fact arise. Since arguments were addressed in Civil Writ Petition No. 3323 of 2000, the facts are being taken from this case. Counsel for the parties are agreed that the decision in this case will govern the other cases as well.

Petitioners appeared in the Secondary School Examination conducted by the National Open School (for short the School), Government of India, New Delhi in May, 1999. They did not pass in that examination. Copies of the provisional marks statements issued by the School have been appended as annexures to the writ petition. Annexure P-1 is the provisional marks statement pertaining to petitioner No. 1. This document contains the name of this petitioner, her date of birth and also her roll number. It is signed by the Controller of Examinations and bears 1.8.1999 as the date. A perusal of this document shows that petitionerNo. 1 appeared in 6 subjects and she failed in all the subjects. Similar are the provisional marks statements of the other petitioners. Having failed in this examination the petitioners applied to the Punjab School Education Board (for short the Board) for appearing as private candidates in the matriculation examination. The applications were submitted much before the last date which was 30.9.1999. Along with their applications the petitioners had appended certified copies of their provisional marks statements issued to them by the School. They were issued the roll numbers sometime in February, 2000. The matriculation examination commenced on 13.3.2000. They appeared in the first two papers on 13.3.2000 and 15-3.2000. When they went to appear in the paper of Mathematics on 18.3.2000 they were prevented from taking the examination on the ground that their candidature had been cancelled. It was then that they filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a mandamus directing the respondents to permit them to take the examination and declare their result. In pursuance to the interim order passed by this court, the petitioners appeared in the remaining papers of this examination though some of them missed a paper.

In response to the notice of motion issued by this Court, the Board has filed its reply. One of the preliminary objections taken was that the School had not been impleaded as a respondent. The petitioners sought permission of this court and amended the writ petition by impleading the School as respondent No. 3. It is pleaded that the Board has framed the Punjab School Education Board (Matriculation Examination) Regulations, 1988 (hereinafter called the Regulations) which govern the said examination and that the petitioners are not eligible to appear in the examination in view of Regulation 6(ii). It is averred that the certificates produced by the petitioners do not show their result as the result column has been scored out. Another objection taken by the Board is that the provisional marks statements produced by the petitioners have not been countersigned by the prescribed authority and, therefore, they were ineligible to take the examination. The School has also filed its reply. It is admitted that the petitioners appeared in the Senior Secondary School Examination held by the School in May, 1999 in which they failed. The School has also admitted that in view of Regulation 6 of the Regulations, the petitioners are eligible to sit in the matriculation examination conducted by the Board as private candidates.

From the rival contentions of the parties the question that arises for our consideration is whether the petitioners were eligible to take the matriculation examination conducted by the Board as private candidates. Since the answer to this question will primarily depend on Regulation 6 of the Regulations it would be useful to reproduce the same which reads as under :-

"The following persons are eligible to appear in the annual examination as private candidates :-

(i) A candidate who has passed the 8th Class examination from the Board or its equivalent examination from any other education Board or from any institution recognised by any State Education Department/Education Board, at least two academic years previously.

A candidate who has passed the 8th Class examination from any institution recognised by a State Education Department/Education Board shall submit a certificate to this effect duly countersigned by an officer not below the rank of District Education Officer concerned.

(ii) Candidates who have failed in the Matriculation Examination of the Board or in any other examination recognised by the Board as equivalent thereto.

Note: Candidates who failed in the examination held by an authority other than the Board, shall produce a certificate of having failed in the examination, countersigned by the Secretary or an equivalent Officer of respective Board or the Central Board of Secondary Education or other authority as the case may be.

(iii) Candidates placed under reappear in the Matriculation Examination conducted by the Board.

(iv) Candidates who want to appear in one or more additional subjects after haying passed the Matriculation or any other equivalent examination.

Note : No person shall appear in the examination as private candidate, if his name was on the rolls of a recognised institution at any time after thirtieth November immediately preceding the commencement of the examination."

Regulation 6 refers to the eligibility of candidates to appear in the annual examination conducted by the Board as private candidates. According to clause (ii), candidates who have failed in the matriculation examination of the Board or in any other examination recognised by the Board as equivalent thereto are eligible to appear as private candidates. Petitioners claim that they failed in the Secondary School Examination when they appeared in May, 1999 and since that examination is recognised by the Board as equivalent to its matriculation examination they are eligible to appear in the matriculation examination as private candidates. It is common case of the parties that the Secondary School Examination conducted by the School has been recognised by the Board as equivalent to its matriculation examination. What was strenuously contended by the learned counsel for the Board is that the petitioners have not failed in the Secondary School Examination conducted by the School because in the provisional marks statement the column pertaining to the ''Result'' has been scored off and they have not been shown as failed candidates. It was also submitted by Shri Kanwaljit Singh, Advocate on behalf of the Board that a candidate who fails in an examination held by an authority other than the Board has to produce a certificate of having failed in the examination countersigned by the Secretary or by an equivalent officer or other authority as the case may be but the provisional marks statements as produced by the petitioners have not been signed by the Secretary of the School. The argument indeed is that the provisional marks statements produced by the petitioners though signed by the Controller of Examinations of the School are not signed by its Secretary and, therefore, it has to be assumed that they are not signed by the competent authority. It is true that in the provisional marks statement the column pertaining to the ''Result'' has been scored off but that does not mean that the petitioners had passed in the said examination. The number of marks obtained by them in each of the subjects clearly indicate that they have failed in most of the subjects and the word ''F'' appearing against the marks obtained by them indicates that they have failed. For instance, petitioner No. 1 has failed in all the six subjects in which she appeared and the Board still wants us to believe that she has not failed in the examination. Similarly, when we look at the provisional marks stateinent of petitioner No. 2, we find that she failed in three of the six papers in which she appeared. The Board has not produced the Rules pertaining to the Secondary School Examination conducted by the School to show that in spite of her having failed in three subjects she could be declared as pass in the examination. We, therefore, unhesitatingly reject the contention of the counsel for the Board that the petitioners had not failed in the Secondary School Examination conducted by the School in May, 1999.

There is another contention half-heartedly advanced by the counsel for the Board. It was urged that the school allows ten chances to the candidates to clear the Secondary School Examination and till those chances are exhausted, the candidates are not declared as having failed and, therefore, the petitioners cannot be considered to have failed in the examination held in May, 1999. The contention appears to be very odd and cannot be accepted because no such plea has been taken in the written statement nor was any Rule to this effect produced before us in the course of arguments. The prospectus of the School also does not contain any such provision.

The only question that now remains to be decided is whether the provisional marks statements produced by the petitioners have been countersigned by a competent authority. This question need not detain us for long. The School has filed its reply in which it is admitted that the petitioners appeared in the Secondary School Examination conducted by it in May, 1999 and they failed in the said examination. The School has also admitted having issued the provisional marks statements which the petitioners have produced along with the writ petition in support of their plea that they had failed in the examination. The School has also admitted that the petitioners failed in that examination. On one of the dates of hearing, we directed Shri Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate to seek instructions from the School and inform the Court as to which is the competent authority to issue the provisional marks statements to the failed candidates. Shri Aggarwal received a fax message from the School copy of which has been placed on the record. This is a communication dated 27.7.2000 addressed by the Executive Officer of the School to him in which it is stated that the School follows CBSE by-laws in view of Clause 9 of Rule 10 of the Memorandum of Association and Rules & Regulations of National Open School Society which provides that until it frames its own by-laws for governance, it may adopt for the interim period, the Rules applicable in Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi''. It is also stated therein that according to Rule 59 of the Central Board of Secondary Education Examination by-laws ''all the results of the examinations conducted by the Board shall be declared with the approval of the Chairman''. The Executive Officer has further infonned the counsel that ''Controller of Ex- aminations being Head of the Department of Examinations signs the mark sheets of the students and he also signs the certificates of the pass students along with the Chairman of the School''. It is, thus, clear from this communication that it is the Controller of Examinations who signs the mark sheets of all the students who did not pass students along with the Chairman. We, therefore, find no basis for the argument of the teamed counsel for the Board that the provisional marks statements produced by the petitioners were not countersigned by the competent authority.

In the result, it must be held that the petitioners failed in the Secondary School Examination conducted by the School in May, 1999 and having produced their provisional marks statements which were signed by the Controller of Examinations of the School were eligible to appear in the matriculation examination held by the Board as private candidates.

For the reasons recorded above, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned decision of the Board cancelling the candidature of the petitioners is quashed. A further direction is issued to the Board that since the petitioners were eligible to appear in the matriculation examination, their result be declared forthwith. There is no order as to costs.

Petitions allowed