R.A. Sharma, J. - (1.) PETITIONER , being a student of Rashtriya Vidya Mandir Inter College, Chandwak, District Jaunpur (hereinafter referred to as the college) filled up High School Examination form in August, 1986 as a regular student for High School Examination of 1987. It appears that the petitioner also filled up Examination form as a private candidate for the same examination of High School 1987. Case of the petitioner is that as he was not able to attend the classes as a regular student, he filled up the form as a private candidate and his name from the college was struck of in February, 1987. Petitioner was allotted a roll number as a private candidate and he appeared in the Examination and was declared passed by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. (hereinafter referred to as the Board). Petitioner thereafter joined 11th class and having passed the same he was in 1988 studying in final year of Intermediate, when the impugned order was received. By the impugned order the result of the petitioner of High School Examination, 1987 has been cancelled and further the petitioner has been debarred from appearing in the said Examination in subsequent year of 1988. It is against this order that this writ petition has been filed. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit and in reply thereto the petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel and the writ petition is being disposed of finally in accordance with the rules of the Court.
(2.) IT is admitted to the respondents that the petitioner's name as a regular student was struck of from the roll of the college and petitioner was allotted a roll number by the Board for appearing in the High School Examination of 1987 as a private candidate, consequent to which he appeared in the said Examination and was declared successful. It is also admitted that the petitioner thereafter joined 11th class in which he passed and was studying in the 2nd (final) year of Intermediate, when the impugned order was communicated to him. Delay in taking decision and communicating the same to the petitioner by the Board has resulted in grave injustice to the petitioner, because not only his High School Examination of 1987 has been cancelled but subsequent Examination of 11th class also stands cancelled and he cannot appear in Intermediate Examination, because passing of High School is a condition precedent for all subsequent Examinations. The Board is, as such, guilty of delay and cannot be permitted on account of its inaction to jeopardise the career of any student. A Division Bench of this court in Vedpal Singh v. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, 1987 U.P.L.B. & E.C. 298 has under similar circumstances quashed the order of the Board by holding that: Once having declared the result the Board was estopped from recalling the result and thereafter declaring the petitioner as also failed almost after two years. This cannot be done and this will greatly affect the career of the petitioner, who had already studied for two years by attending the classes in Intermediate. Another Division Bench of this Court in Rajnath Singh Yadav v. Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, (1986) 2 U.P.L.B. & E.C. 1424 has quashed the orders of the Board on the ground of delayed action. I have also in Pravesh Kumar Dubey v. University of Kanpur, 1990 U.P.L.B. & E.C. 1053 quashed the order of the University withholding the result of B.Sc. Part II Examination on account of delay on the part of the University in correcting the mistake in the mark sheet. The order of the Board as such, is liable to be set aside. Learned Standing Counsel has however argued that it is not open to the petitioner to fill in Examination form both as a regular and private candidate. It is however, admitted in the counter affidavit that the name of the petitioner was struck of from the roll of the college in February, 1987. In this connection it may also be mentioned that no Rule or Regulation has been placed before me by the learned Standing Counsel in order to justify their contention that a candidate cannot fill up form of High School Examination both as a regular and private candidate. The position might be different, if a candidate has appeared in the Examination both as a regular and private candidate. Obviously a person cannot appear twice in the same Examination. In the instant case as mentioned above, petitioner's name from the college was struck of in February, 1987 and he ceased to be a regular student thereafter. It is also admitted that the petitioner did not appear in the High School Examination as a regular student. The Board as such, had no lawful authority to cancel the petitioner's examination and debar him for future also.
(3.) LEARNED Standing counsel has further argued that along with the Examination form, petitioner has submitted a TREASURY CHALLAN, which was in fact issued in the name of another person but the petitioner has filled in his name after erasing the name of the original person. In this connection learned counsel has placed before me the original Treasury challan along with a letter from the Treasury office. The case of the petitioner is that he submitted the money to the Principal and it is these authorities, who arrange for treasury Challan and if there is any erosion or manipulation, petitioner cannot be held responsible for it. Be that as it may, it is not necessarily for me to decide this controversy after more than three years. The Board should have taken action immediately after treasury challan was received along with the form and if it had slept over the matter for such a long time it has to blame itself. It is not proper at such late stage to scrutinize the matter to resolve this controversy. That apart, this is not a ground on which the impugned order has been passed. Validity of the order passed by the authorities has to be judged by the reasons mentioned in the order and cannot be supplemented by fresh reason in the form of affidavit or pleadings of the parties. In this connection the relevant passage from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi : AIR 1978 SC 851 is extracted below: The second equally relevant matter is that when statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhan Das Bhanji : AIR 1952 SC 16. (at P. 18.) "Public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of the explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.;