IMPORTNAT POINT
The Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of permitting the students to pursue their studies and to appear in the examination under the interim orders passed by the Courts.

Headnote:EDUCATION-Constitution of India-Article 226-Writ Petition-Interim orders permitting students to pursue their studies and to appear in examination-Practice deprecated-Respondent 1 was a student of a School affiliated to Central Board of Secondary Education-She filled up form for High School examination which was withheld by school authorities as she had not cleared her class IX examination-Writ Petition filed by respondent-Interim order made directing authorities to permit petitioner to join class X-She was allowed to appear in examination-Result declared-Writ petition dismissed as having become infructuous-Whether order passed by High Court disposing of writ petition was sustainable-(No).
       Held : This Court has on several occasions earlier deprecated the practice of permitting the students to pursue their studies and to appear in the examination under the interim orders passed in the petitions. In most of such cases it is ultimately pleaded that since the course was over or the result has been declared, the matter deserves to be considered sympathetically. It results into very awkward and difficult situations. Rules stare straight into the face of the plea of sympathy and concessions, against the legal provisions. (Para 6)
       In the case in hand the fact situation was even worse as compared to the decision cited above. The student, namely, respondent No. 1 had failed to clear her class IX examination which was a necessary requirement as provided under the bye-laws of the Board so as to be entitled to appear in the class X examination conducted by the Board. Despite notice, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents No. 1 and 2 to indicate any fact or circumstance so as to take any different view. Condoning the lapses or overlooking the legal requirements in consideration of mere sympathy factor does not solve the problem rather breeds more violations in the hope of being condoned. It disturbs the discipline of the system and ultimately adversely affects the academic standards. (Para 7)
       According to the respondent No. 1 herself, she was declared failed in her examination for class IX. The High Court, while finally deciding the writ petition No. 426 of 1996 by order dated 2-7-1996 conveniently overlooked to take note of the provision contained in bye-law No. 7.3, contents of which have been indicated above. There was only a mention of clause 7.3 of bye-laws of the Board but nothing beyond that was indicated or observed in the judgment, as to why it would not be applicable to the case. After quoting bye-law 10.2 the High Court held that the respondent No. 1 was eligible to appear in the high-school examination since there was a gap of two years in between her two examinations viz. class VIII and class X. The High Court also did not record any finding in respect of other conditions as mentioned in bye-law No. 10.2, namely, a student must have secured higher than E grade in each subject of internal assessment and has also passed the third language as per requirement laid down in the scheme. The High Court failed to consider that bye-law 10.2 will not be applicable to the respondent No. 1 but it would be bye-law 7.3, which would apply in her case. Therefore, it was necessary that she must have passed class IX as a regular student before she could be allowed to undertake examination for class X held by the Board. The position stands further clarified in regard to the private candidates under bye-laws No. 16 and 21. The respondent No. 1 did not fulfill the conditions laid for private candidates and her case would only be covered by bye-law 7.3 and not by bye-law No. 10.2 of the examination by-laws of the Board as held by the High Court. Despite the position under the bye-laws as indicated above, the High Court finally disposed of the writ petition No. 426 of 1996 cursorily holding that since the respondent No. 1 had appeared in the examination and her result had been declared provisionally therefore, the Board was directed to declare her result of class X and to issue a fresh marks sheet without any endorsement thereon (emphasis supplied). It was completely overlooked that by order dated 1-3-1996, it was provided that the respondent No. 1 was allowed to appear in examination, subject to the decision of the writ petition. Hence there was no occasion to say that since provisional result has been declared therefore, final result should also be declared with a fresh marks sheet without any endorsement thereon. The validity of the examination undertaken by respondent No. 1 should have been properly scrutinized in the light of all the relevant examination bye-laws of the Board. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

Brijesh Kumar, J.- The Central Board of Secondary Education (for short the Board ), felt aggrieved by the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court rendered on 2-7-1996 in writ petition No. 426 of 1996, filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2, whereby directing the Board to declare the result of the examination undertaken by the respondent No. 1 for class X in the year 1996, hence the present appeal. In the impugned judgment it was also directed that a fresh marks-sheet be also issued to her, since the result had been declared earlier only provisionally. The grievance of the Board that the respondent No. 1 was not eligible to appear in the high school examination, was not accepted.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 was a student of St. Paul s School, Morar, Gwalior, affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi. She filled up form for high school examination but the same was withheld by the school authorities on the ground that she had not cleared her class IX examination. It gave rise to filing of a writ petition No. 484/95 by respondents Nos. 1 and 2, the candidate and her father. On 4-4-95 an interim order was passed by the High Court to the following effect:-

"4.4.95

ORDER

(1) Notice of admission was given to the respondents.

(2) There is a report that respondents have refused the notice.

(3) Let a fresh notice be sent by way of registered post also and service be effected by affixation. The Notices be issued for 18th April, 1995.

(4) In para 11 of the Petition, it has been stated that the Petitioner was initially "promoted" but later on she was declared to have "failed". In this view of the matter, a direction is given to the respondents to permit the petitioner No. 2 to join Class X. This would be subject to the decision of this petition.

C.C. Today. Sd/-

T.S. Doabia

Judge"

Later yet another interim order was granted on 19-9-1995 in Writ Petition No. 484 of 1995 to the following effect:-

"19.9.1995

ORDER

Petitioner No. 2 be permitted to take part in the examination

To come up on the date already fixed.

Sd/- T.S. Doabia

Judge"

The Writ Petition No. 484/95 was thereafter disposed of by order dated 5-12-95, which reads as under:-

The order of the High Court was set aside. Another decision reported in 1993 (4) SCC 401, Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kr. Bansal, a three judge bench decision, was relied upon in the case of Sunil Kumar (supra). A passage from the above noted decision was also quoted therein which reads as follows:

"We are afraid that this kind of administration of interlocutory remedies, more guided by sympathy quite often wholly misplaced, does no service to anyone. From the series of orders that keep coming before us in academic matters, we find that loose, ill-conceived sympathy masquerades as interlocutory justice exposing judicial discretion to the criticism of degenerating into private benevolence. This is subversive of academic discipline, or whatever is left of it, leading to serious impasse in academic life. Admissions cannot be ordered without regard to the eligibility of the candidates. Decisions on matters relevant to be taken into account at the interlocutory stage cannot be deferred or decided later when serious complications might ensure from the interim order itself. In the present case, the High Court was apparently moved by sympathy for the candidates than by an accurate assessment of even the prima facie legal position. Such orders cannot be allowed to stand. The courts should not embarrass academic authorities by themselves taking over their functions.

Yet another decision referred to is reported in (1986) 2 SCC 667, A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. etc. etc., again a three judge bench decision. It was observed in this case:

"...We cannot by our fiat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 833

IMPORTNAT POINTThe Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of permitting the students to pursue their studies and to appear in the examination under the interim orders passed by the Courts.

IMPORTNAT POINT
The Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of permitting the students to pursue their studies and to appear in the examination under the interim orders passed by the Courts.