MINAKSHI CHOWDHURY Vs. WEST BENGAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION AND OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
West Bengal Board Of Secondary Education And Others
Click here to view full judgement.
Anil Kumar Sen, J. -
(1.) In this Rule, which was obtained on an application under Article 226 (1) of the Constitution, the petitioner, Minakshi Chowdhury,'who appeared in the School Final Examination held in the year 1969, disputes the decision of the Board of Secondary Education with regard to her result.
(2.) The petitioner appeared at the said examination as a private candidate from the Haltu High School for girls on a permission given by the Board. The said examination was held in or about the month of April,1969 and her Roll Number was South FP No. C 96. Result of the said examination was published by the Board on July 17, 1969 but against the petitioner's roll number the letter 'W' appeared in the published result, indicating that her result had been withheld. It is not disputed that subsequently on August 13, 1969 the Board finalised the petitioner's result and sent the mark sheet through the school which was received by the petitioner on August 21, 1969. From this mark-sheet it appears that the petitioner had failed in one subject, namely, Mathematics and as such was given an option to appear at a compartmental examination due on August 20, 1969.
(3.) According to the petitioner, she had not actually failed in the examination as indicated by the mark-sheet but she was made to fail at the instance of respondent No. 3, the Secretary of the Board, out of personal enmity. Her case is that as usual with other candidates her result was also duly approved and declared by the Examinations Committee of the Board and according to the said result she had duly passed the School Final Examination. But thereafter the respondent No. 3, the Secretary of the Board, approached the different Head Examiners of Mathematics, General Science and Sanskrit to deduct certain marks allotted to her and although some of them refused the s aid respondent No. 3, deducted 8 marks from her Mathematics script, 12 marks from her General Science script and 5 marks from her Sanskrit script. This was done, according to the petitioner, without the knowledge of the Examinations Committee after the said Committee had approved her result only out of personal enmity with the petitioner's father who being an employee of the Board and the President of the Employee Union had often come in confrontation with the said respondent No. 3. She states that such deduction, resulting in her failure, had not only been made malafide but as a punitive measure and as such the decision of the Board is liable to be struck down by this Court.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.