I. S. ISRANI, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition filed by the petitioner Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer against the order of learned Civil Judge, Sikar dated 7. 11. 1983 in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 54/83 modifying the order dated 20. 10. 83 passed by the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Sikar in civil misc. application No. 125/83.
(2.) THE non-petitioner No. 1 appeared in Higher Secondary examination held by the petitioner-Board in 1983 and she was given supplementary in English Compulsory paper. It is submitted that at the time of supplying of the mark-sheet of main examination to the non-petitioner No. l she was informed though endorsement sent in writing that she is to appear in the supplementary examination of 1983 for English compulsory paper. The non-petitioner No. 1 filled-in her admission form for the said supplementary examination and also deposited the necessary fee. In the suit, it was submitted by the non-petitioner No. 1 that when she reached on 15. 9. 1983 for appearing in the examination at Government Kalyan Higher Secondary School Sikar at 2. 45 P. M. she was informed that the examination of compulsory English paper had already taken place in the morning at 7. 30 A. M. The contention of the petitioner No. 1 in the suit was that since the admission card for appearing in the supplementary examination was given to her on 15. 9. 83 she went to appear in the examination in evening when she came to know that the examinations of English compulsory paper had taken place in the morning. In para 3 of the plaint, it was stated by her that when she enquired on 14. 9. 83 she was told that the examination of compulsory English paper shall take place at 3. 00 P. M. on 15. 9. 83 as was held last year also. The petitioner- board stated in the reply that all the students were asked to collect their admission cards atleast one day earlier than the date of examination i. e. 15. 9. 1983, but she did not collect her card even one day earlier and, therefore, it was due to her own. negligence that she did not come to know about the time table of the examination, which was attached with every admission card supplied to all the candidates. 4; None appears on behalf of the non-petitioner No. 1 The contention of Mr. H. C. Rastogi learned counsel for the petitioner is that 3250 candidates in all appeared in the supplementary examination of compulsory English paper and the learned trial court granted temporary injunction restraining the petitioner Board from declaring the results of all 3250 students, even though they were not concerned with the non-appearance or the controversy raised by the non-petitioner No. l. It was further ordered by the trial court that special supplementary examination for the non-petitioner No. 1 may be held by the petitioner-Board. It was further directed that till the special supplementary examination for the non-petitioner No. l is held, the result of all other candidates who appeared in the English compulsory papers be not to be declared. An appeal was filed against the order of the trial court and by the impugned order the injunction issued by the learned trial court was modified to the extent that the petitioner board was directed to declare the result of all candidates who appeared in the supplementary examination of Compulsory English paper. However, the direction regarding holding special supplementary examination for the non-petitioner No. l was upheld. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and has also gone through the orders of the courts and other relevant documents.
(3.) THE contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that on account of ad-interim injunction issued by the trial court on 22. 9. 83 restraining the petitioner Board from declaring the results of all other candidates which was confirmed on 20. 10. 1983 and finally, modified by the impugned order on 7. 11. 1983, the results of all the candidates could not be declared for more than 1 ½ months. THErefore, quite likely such candidates could not pursue their higher studies in time and had to face numerable difficulties on that account. It is contended that the order of the learned trial court was absolutely perverse and the learned first appellate court also committed material irregularity in up- holding the portion of the order regarding direction to hold special supplementary examination for the non-petitioner No. 1 and such order would cause irreparable injury and failure of justice to the petitioner-Board. It is contended that thousands of students appear in the main as well as supplementary examinations and if some students do not care to take admission cards at proper time and do not read the programme of the examination supplied to all the candidates carefully, and the Board is asked to hold special examination for such careless and negligent students, there will be no end to hold the examinations by the Board. It may be stated that this revision petition is more or less now of academic interest, in as much as the learned counsel has informed this court on instructions from the petitioner that the non-petitioner No. l had filled up the form to appear in the examination of higher secondary in the year 1984 and appeared in the examination in 1984. However it is rather distressing to say that such ad-interim injunction order was issued by a judicial court by which the result of 3250 , candidates was withheld and their career was jeopardised on no account of their fault, and who had to do nothing with the litigation carried on by the non-petitioner No. 1. I am at pains to remark that the judicial court cannot be swaged way to issue such injunction merely because a particular student happens to be son or daughter of a judicial officer when all the persons who approach the courts stand on the same level and the judicial courts are not expected to act on any extraneous considerations. Since much water has flown under the bridge since the revision petition has been filed and heard today. In the circumstances when the non-petitioner No. l has already appeared in the examination in 1984 and the operation of the impugned order was also stayed by this court on 13. 1. 1984, I am not inclined to decide the legal issues raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. With the above observations, the revision petition is disposed of accordingly. . ;