Shabnam vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Challenging the action of the respondents in not permitting the petitioner to appear in Diploma in Education, Second Year Main Examination which was conducted for the academic session 2012-2013 from 9.7.2013, this writ petition was filed. The case of the petitioner is that he has pursued the course in question from the Institute of respondent no. 3. As per the requirement prescribed by respondent no. 2 for appearing in the aforesaid examination, the examination forms were to be filled online. The procedure was prescribed for filling the examination forms online and the schedule of examinations was notified.

According to the petitioner, the rules for submission of form contemplated that for submission of the forms online is to be done in continuation both for the second chance of Diploma in Education first year and the main examination for the second year examination respectively which was to commence from 8.7.2013 and 9.7.2013. However, it is the case of the petitioner after he has filled up their forms for the first instance and before the continuity could be maintained after acceptance of online form for second chance for D.Ed. first year, their I.D. got locked and the petitioner could not fill up the form for main examination of D.Ed. second year due to some technical error or default on their part.

Be it as it may be, due to locking of the I.D. of the petitioner, he could not submit his forms.

Respondents filed reply and submitted that since the petitioner failed to submit his form within the period prescribed and according to the procedure contemplated, now nothing could be done.

We have heard and considered the rival contentions of the parties.

It is a fact that the petitioner was denied permission mainly because certain fault was committed by the respondents in the process of online submission of the examination forms of the petitioner. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has acted in a manner which could be said to be deliberate act or act of commission or omission on their part, for which the petitioner is liable to be punished.

The error committed on the part of the respondents seems to be a genuine technical error for which the petitioner should not be made to suffer, however, as the examination in question is over, interest of justice would be met in-case the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to appear in the next examination of the course in question either mains or supplementary as the case may be.

Therefore, the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to appear in the said examination without taking note of the default which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

In view of the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of. C.c. as per rules.