HARINDER KAUR Vs. PUNJAB SCHOOL EDUCATION BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Miss Harinder Kaur (minor) has approached this Court by way of writ petition filed by her father Sat Pal Singh, under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of a writ of mandamus for directing the respondent Punjab School Education Board, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, to declare the result of the petitioner for "Plus One" Examination held in April, 1987, and for the quashing of the decision of the respondent-Board conveyed to the petitioner on 8th June, 1987, by which her candidature has been cancelled.

(2.) Briefly stated, the petitioner was a student of St. Francis School, Amritsar, and after completing her studies for the Matriculation, she appeared in the Matric Examination held in March, 1986, by the respondent Board. As the petitioner had not been declared successful, she appeared in the Supplementary Examination held in September, 1986, and was declared successful. After declaration of the result of Matriculation Examination, the petitioner submitted the Admission Form for 'Plus One' Examination and deposited the requisite fee with the Board. This Admission Form was found to be in order by the Board's authorities, but the fee deposited by the petitioner was found deficient. So, she was required, vide communication sent by the Board on 1st April, 1987 (Annexure P-1), to remit the balance amount of Rs. 145/-. The same was deposited by the petitioner within the stipulated period. Thereafter, the petitioner was allowed to take the examination which commenced on 3rd April, 1987, in which examination, according to the petitioner, she fared very well.

(3.) However, on 8th June, 1987, the Board addressed a communication (Annexure P-2) to the petitioner intimating to her that as she had passed the Matriculation Examination only in September, 1986, and had appeared in the 'Plus One' Examination in April, 1987, the condition of one year's gap in between the two examinations was not complied with. Hence, the candidature of the petitioner was cancelled. Later on, when the result of 'Plus One' Examination was declared on 24th July, 1987, in the Gazette, the petitioner found that her candidature stood cancelled. The petitioner, through her father approached the Board authorities and informed them that at was not such a condition which went to the root of the matter and there were hundreds of other candidates who too had appeared in the 'Plus One' Examination in April, 1987, after having passed the Matriculation Examination in September, 1986, like the petitioner. According to the petitioner, if the result of those candidates could be declared on the basis of their performance in the examination, there was no reason for not treating the petitioner alike. However, when nothing was done to redress the grievance of the petitioner, she approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.