Sarika Singh through her Mother/Natural Guardian Smt. Shahikala vs C.B.S.E.

Gita Mittal, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner complaining that she had passed her Class X examination from the Glenhill School Manduadih, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. She thereafter joined Dr. Amrit Lal Ishrat Memorial Sunbeam School, Rohania, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, impleaded as respondent No. 2 herein, which is stated to be affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education, respondent No. 1 herein, for the purpose of improvement of class X result.

It is claimed by the petitioner that she had regularly attending classes and submitted her examination form in time for appearing in the Board examination for Class XII which is commencing from 1st March, 2008. According to the petitioner, she submitted the examination form between August, 2007 to October, 2007. A claim is made that the petitioner deposited the prescribed examination fee for the CBSE as well. However, when queries were made for issuance of an admit card, the respondent No. 2 did not answer the queries satisfactorily.

On or about 19th January, 2008, the petitioner learnt that her examination form for the class X examination had not been forwarded by the respondent No. 2 to the respondent No. 1. All representations of the petitioner for consideration of the examination form for the purposes of appearing in the examination to be held in March, 2008 had fallen on deaf ear necessitating the filing of the writ petition.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a receipt purportedly issued by the respondent No. 2 school. Perusal thereof would show that the receipt is issued towards amenity charges which were paid by the petitioner and also deposited only the monthly examination fee which was payable to the school itself and not the examination fee towards class X board examination which is held by the respondent No. 1.

Mr. Atul Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, submits that it is an admitted position that no admission form or the examination fee has been tendered by either the petitioner or the respondent No. 2 in respect of the petitioner''s candidature to the CBSE. He points out that according to the notified schedule, the last date for the receipt of the form and the examination fee was on or before 10th September, 2007 and the last date with late fee as prescribed for different dates was upto 30th October, 2007. He submits that the respondent No. 1 has no discretion in the matter and delay in submission of the application form and the examination fee cannot be condoned beyond 30th October, 2007.

Dasti notice was directed to be issued to the respondent No. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed before this Court an affidavit of service showing that the respondent No. 2 has been served with the notices from this Court. None has appeared despite the matter having been passed over once.

In the light of the foregoing facts, I find that it is an admitted position that no examination form or examination fee in respect of the petitioner has been received by the respondent No. 1. The same may have been deposited with the respondent No. 2. It may be that on account of the default on its part, the same has not been sent to the respondent No. 1. However, the parties would remain bound by the rules and schedule notified by the respondent No. 1 and no direction can be issued to the respondent No. 1 to issue an admit card or permit the petitioner to participate or undertake the class X examinations which are stated to be commencing from 1st March, 2008.

This is not to say that in case the respondent No. 2 is at fault, the petitioner would not have reason to claim damages for the default by the respondent No. 2 and the loss of one academic year on account of non-forwarding of her application by it. However, so far as this Court is concerned, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the writ petition.

Accordingly, I find no merit in this writ petition which is hereby dismissed.

The petitioner shall be at liberty to seek appropriate remedy against the respondent No. 2, if so advised, in accordance with law.