R.A. Sharma, J. - (1.) Petitioner was permitted by Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. (hereinafter referred to as the Board) to appear as private candidate in High School Examination of 1990-91 and was allotted Roll No. 1440713. In pursuance thereof the petitioner appeared in the said examination. Instead of declaring result the Board sent a letter dated May 25, 1991 cancelling petitioner's candidature on the ground that bis examination form was received in the office of the Board after the prescribed date. It is against this order that the petitioner filed this writ petition. Further prayer for writ of mandamus, directing the respondent to declare bis result, has also been made.
(2.) The respondent has filed 'a counter-affidavit in which it has been stated that the petitioner's examination form was received in the office after the prescribed date. Although petitioner's examination form was received after the prescribed date, but he was issued admit-card for appearance in the examination. A civil suit No. 212 of 1991 was filed in the court of Learned Munsif-City, Bareilly. The said suit was filed by six persons other than the petitioner and in that suit the learned Munsif issued an ad interim order dated 19-4-199 i directing the Board to permit the plaintiffs to appear in the Board's examination of 1990-91. There was no interim injunction directing the Board to admit the petitioner in the said examination. The averment made in the counter-affidavit to the effect that the petitioner was issued admit-card on account of interim order, passed by Learned Munsif, is not justified. From perusal of the interim injunction, passed by learned Munsif, It appears that learned Munsif did not issue any such direction for grant of admit-card to the petitioner. Even the learned District Judge, while disposing of the appeal of the Board, against the interim order passed by learned Munsif, has recorded a finding that there was no interim injunction granted by learned Munsif in favour of the petitioner.
(3.) It is not necessary to go into the controversy as to whether the examination form, submitted by the petitioner, was received in the office of the Board after the prescribed date because the Board itself issued admit-card to the petitioner. It was open to tho Board, which issued the admit-card, to scrutinise the form submitted by the petitioner before issuance of the admit-card. If there was negligence on the part of the Board in scrutinising the examination form, the petitioner cannot be penalised for that. After the petitioner was issued the admit-card he must have devoted his time and money for preparation for the examination. The action of the respondent in cancelling the examination of the petitioner, was not justified.;