RAKESH KUMARI Vs. PUNJAB SCHOOL EDUCATION BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, approaching this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, is a minor. She claims two reliefs : i) quashing of orders Annexure P-2 whereby the Punjab School Education Board-respondent, has held her ineligible for the examination held in March 1986; and ii) requiring the said Board to declare her result for the examination held in March, 1986.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition are not in dispute. The petitioner passed her matriculation examination in September, 1985, as a private candidate. According to the Regulations applicable on the subject, she did not qualify to appear in the Higher Secondary examination before Sept. 1986, for there had to be a year's gap between the two examinations. However, there was an examination which was being conducted in March 1986. She accordingly filled her admission form on January 20, 1986 (as seen from the original admission form), requesting the Board to permit her candidature in the Higher Secondary examination to be conducted in March 1986. In column 7 of the said admission form, she pointedly stated that she had passed her matriculation examination in September, 1985 as held by the Board and had obtained 810 marks. In column 19 of the form, she made a declaration that she had examined the syllabus, rules and regulations applicable to the examination as also the instructions relating to the admission form. In accordance with regulation 14(1) of Punjab School Education Board (Higher Secondary) Examination Regulation, 1982, the admission form is to be countersigned by the authorities mentioned in the Regulations, and then required to be submitted to the Secretary of the Board. For private candidates one of the authorities concerned which could countersign the form was an officer of the Board not below the rank of an Assistant Secretary. The petitioner's form thus was scrutinised by the Subject Expert, Academic Planning Branch, Punjab School Education Board, and under his seal and signatures he certified that the petitioner had passed the matriculation examination from a recognised institution of the Board at least one year before the examination under the Regulations. The Board on the receipt of such admission form granted candidature to the petitioner, and charged its examination fee. Thereafter the petitioner sat in the examination. Her result was withheld. Her father then wrote a letter Annexure P-1 dated 15th July, 1986, invoking the Board to declare the result of the petitioner. The Board replied back vide letter Annexure P-2 that because of the non-completion of one year's gap, the petitioner was held to be ineligible for the examination held in March 1986 and, therefore, the matter regarding cancellation of her result was under consideration. Simultaneously, the petitioner was advised to send her admission form for sitting in the examination to be held in September, 1986 so that her chance for passing the Higher Secondary examination may not be wasted. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court for the reliefs spelled out earlier.

(3.) It has been strongly urged by Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner had supplied full information to the Board and when an Officer of the Board had certified her candidature to be correct and on the strength thereof she had been permitted to appear in the examination, it was too late in the day for the Board to cancel her candidature on the ground of any ineligibility. Reliance was placed by him on Krishanan v. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, AIR 1976 SC 376, to contend that if the Board had acquiesced in the infirmities which the admission form contained and allowed her to appear in the examination, then by force of the Regulations re-eligibility, the Board had no power to withdraw her candidature. Further, it has beep contended that there was ample time and opportunity for the Board authorities to have found out the defect and it having not done so, it amounted to acquiescence. Reliance was also placed by him on a decision of this Court in Gurchain Singh v. State of Punjab C. W. P. No. 5710 of 1983 decided on January 19, 1984. in which, on the application of the aforesaid Supreme Court judgement, the principle was applied reiteratingly to hold that once a candidate is allowed to take the examination rightly or wrongly, then the Statute which empowers the University to withdraw the candidature of the applicant, has worked itself out and the candidate cannot be refused admission subsequently for any infirmity which should have been looked into before giving the candidate permission to appear. This was a case where some candidates had applied for a course and had made use of qualifactory certificates of an institution which was not recognised by the University, but all the same were accepted by the Selection Committee and the applications submitted by the petitioners were allowed holding them eligible for admission in all respects, which was later attempted to be cancelled. This Court stepped in to forestall that action paving way for the petitioners to continue and complete their course.