Smt. Kiran Rai vs Secretary, Madhyamik Siksha Parishad

Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Standing counsel.

Contention of counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner appeared as a regular candidate in High School examination in the year 1985 conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Examination, U.P. with roll number 673354. Her subjects were Hindi, English, Social science, Home science, Science-I and Sanskrit. She declared her date of birth as 1.4.1971 in that examination. She again appeared in 1986 examination of High School in Hindi, English, Social science, Math-2, Science-2 and Biology subjects with roll No. 1418642 giving her date of birth as 1.8.1971.

Similarly, the petitioner appeared in the Intermediate examination 1987 with roll No. 267252 from Arts subjects. Thereafter the petitioner appeared in Intermediate examination 1988 with Science subjects and was declared successful.

Grievance of the petitioner is that instead of giving impetus to the students, the petitioner has been directed to return back the marks sheet and certificates issued in her favour in respect of 1986 and 1988 examinations.

Submission of the counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner could have taken additional subjects in the High School examination 1986 and Intermediate examination 1988.

Both the parties have relied upon Chapter XII, Rule 17 of the Regulations framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, which reads as under:

17- bu fofu;eksa dh ''krksZ ds gksrs gq, Hkh fuEufyf[kr Js.kh ds ijh{kkFkhZ Hkh O;fDrxr ijh{kkFkhZ ds :i es izfof"V gks ldrs gS%

�1� dksbZ ijh{kkFkhZ] ftlus gkbZLdwy ijh{kk vFkok mlds led{k ijh{kk mRrh.kZ dh gS ckn dh gkbZLdwy ijh{kk esa ,d vFkok vf/kd fo"k;ksa esa izfof"V gks ldrk gS vkSj ,sls ijh{kkFkhZ ;fn lQy gks tk; rks og vfrfjDr fy;s x;s fo"k; vFkok fo"k;ks esa ijh{kk mRrh.kZ gksus dk izek.k i= dk vf/kdkj gksxk A

izfrcU/k ;g fd fo"k; vFkok fo"k;ks dk pquko dsoy ,d gh oxZ rd lhfer gks A

;g Hkh izfrcU/k gS fd og ml o"kZ iw.kZ vFkok vkaf''kd b.VjehfM;V ijh{kk esa ugh izfo"V gks jgk gS A

;g Hkh izfrcU/k gS fd og ml fo"k; vFkok fo"k;ksa dks ugh ysxk tks mlds }kjk iwoZ dh gkbZLdwy ijh{kk esa fy, x;s Fks] ftles og mRrh.kZ gqvk Fkk A

�2� �ij ds [kaM �1� dh ''krksZ ds gksrs gq, Hkh] dksbZ ijh{kkFkhZ ftles gkbZLdwy vFkok led{k ijh{kk mRrh.kZ dj yh gS] ckn dh gkbZLdwy ijh{kk ds okf.kT; ds iz''u i= rhu ds �vk''kqfyfi rFkk Vad.k� es bl izfrcU/k ds lkFk izfo"V gks ldrk gS fd mlus ;g fo"k; iwoZ gkbZLdwy ijh{kk esa ftlesa og mRrh.kZ gqvk Fkk ] ugh fy;k Fkk A ,sls ijh{kkFkhZ lQy gks tkus ij dsoy vk''kqfyfi rFkk Vad.k eas gkbZLdwy ijh{kk mRrh.kZ gksus dk izek.k i= ikus dk vf/kdkjh gksxk A

�3� dksbZ ijh{kkFkhZ ftlus b.VjehfM;V vFkok mlds led{k dksbZ ijh{kk mRrh.kZ dh gS ckn dh b.VjehfM;V ijh{kk esa ,d vFkok vf/kd fo"k;ks esa �d`f"k fo"k; dks NksM+dj� cSB ldrk gS vkSj ;g ijh{kkFkhZ ;fn lQy gks tk; rks mlds }kjk fy, x;s fo"k;ks esa mRrh.kZ gksus dk izek.ki= ikus dk vf/kdkjh gksxk �izfrcU/k ds lkFk fd fo"k; vFkok fo"k;ksa dk pquko dsoy ,d oxZ rd dh lhfer gks�A

;g Hkh izfrcU/k gS fd ijh{kkFkhZ ml fo"k; vFkok fo"k;ksa dks ugh ysxk tks mlds }kjk iwoZ b.VjehfM;V ijh{kk esa] ftles og mRrh.kZ gqvkk Fkk] fy;s x;s Fks A

�4� dksbZ ijh{kkFkhZ ftlus b.VjehfM;V ijh{kk ,d fo''ks"k oxZ esa mRrh.kZ dh gS] ckn dh b.VjehfM;V ijh{kk esa �d`f"k oxZ NksM+dj� fdlh ,d vU; oxZ esa gksxh] tks nksusk oxZ es leku gS vksj ftudk leku ikB~; fooj.k gS] Js.kh ugh nh tk;sxh A

Standing counsel has vehemently contended that petitioner had appeared in 1985 High School Examination with Art side and had again appeared in 1986 High School Examination with full subjects, this could not have been done by her. She could have taken any additional subject under aforesaid Regulation but could not have appeared in whole of the examination by changing two subjects. Same argument is advanced with regard to the Intermediate examination. The standing counsel has relied upon paragraphs 6, 8-A and 9 of the counter affidavit which are as under:

6- ;g fd ;kfpdk ds izLrj &5 ds dFku ds lEcU/k esa ;g dguk gS fd ;kph us o"kZ 1985 esa gkbZLdwy lEiw.kZ fo"k;ksa ls mRrh.kZ djus ds mijkUr jk0 dU;k b.Vj dkyst] cLrh dh d{kk &11 esa izos''k ysdj v/;;u fd;k vkSj o"kZ 1986 esa d{kk 11 mRrh.kZ fd;k gS A blh nkSjku ;kph us iqu% gkbZLdwy ijh{kk 1986 �vuqdzekad 1418642� tUefrfFk 01-8-71 esa lEiw.kZ fo"k;ksa ls rF; xksiu dj lfEefyr gq;h vkSj o"kZ 1986 es iqu% gkbZLdwy mRrh.kZ ?kksf"kr gks x;h A ijf"kn ds fu;ekuqlkj ;kph us fu;e laxzg v/;k;&12 ds fu;e 17�1� ds vuqlkj gkbZLdwy 1985 esa mig`r fo"k;ksa ds vfrfjDr vU; fo"k;ksa vFkok vU; xzqi ds ,sfPNd fo"k;ksa esa gh lfEefyr gks ldrh Fkh A ijUrq ;kph us rF; xksiu fd;k vkSj o"kZ 1985 dh gkbZLdwy ijh{kk es mig`r fo"k; fgUnh] vaxzsth rFkk lkekftd foKku dks iqu% o"kZ 1986 esa mig`r fd;k gS] tks fu;e laxzg ds v/;k;&12 fu;e 17�1� ds fo:) gS A

8�,� ;g fd blds fu;e 17�1� es Li"V mYys[k gS fd gkbZLdwy vFkok led{k ijh{kkFkhZ ,d vFkok vf/kd fo"k;ksa esa izfof"V gks ldrk gS] ijUrq izfrcU/k ;g gS os fo"k; ,d gh oxZ rd lhfer gks vkSj iwoZ dh gkbZLdwy ijh{kk esa ftlesa og mRrh.kZ gqvk Fkk ugh fy, x, gks A

9- ;g fd ;kfpdk ds izLrj &8 esa of.kZr dFku vLohdkj gS A ;kph us gkbZLdwy ijh{kk 1985 es fgUnh] vaxzsth] lkekftd foKku] x`gfoKku] foKku&1 rFkk laLd`r lkFk mRrh.kZ dh A tcfd mlus o"kZ 1986 dh gkbZLdwy ijh{kk ds fy, fgUnh] vaxzsth] lkekftd foKku] xf.kr&2] foKku&2 rFkk thofoKku rF;ks dks Nqikrs gq, mig`r fd, Fks A mijksDr iSjk &7 esa bafxr 17�1� ds vUrZxr o"kZ 1986 dh gkbZLdwy ijh{kk esa fgUnh] vaxzsth rFkk lkekftd fOkKku ugh fy, tk ldrs Fks A bl izdkj ;kph dsoy xf.kr&2] fOkKku&2] tho foKku �foKku oxZ ds fo"k;� ys ldrh Fkh vkSj mRrh.kZ gksus ij dsoy bu fo"k;ks es mRrh.kZ gksus dk izek.k i= iznku fd;k tkrk A vLrq ;kph dk dFku vlR; ,oa fujk/kkj gS A

It appears from paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit that petitioner had not mentioned that she had earlier appeared in High School examination and she has concealed this fact.

For the reasons that the petitioner after appearing in 1985 High School examination could not have appeared in whole of the examination for the year 1986 with two changes in the subjects, she could have taken two subjects likewise in the Intermediate examination. Since the petitioner has concealed this fact and appeared in the examination in 1986 and Intermediate examination 1988 also by concealment of fact, this Court finds no illegality in the order impugned.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.