SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, JJ.
KULDEEP KUMAR PATHAK – APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11 OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 2964 OF 2015)
Decided on : 05-01-2016
Facts of Case:
Appellant successfully cleared LL.B. examinations in year 2011. He had ambition to get himself enrolled as an Advocate so as to pursue the legal profession. However, before he could do that, respondent-authorities inflicted upon him a big blow in form of canceling his intermediate results of year 2002 which examination was conducted by Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad. Order to this effect, without putting appellant to any notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing, was passed nine years after said exam with direction to confiscate his Certificate. Effect of action of respondent was not only take away result of Intermediate Examination, but it also nullified further courses which he had pursued and passed in meantime.
Findings of Court:
Having taken admission in Intermediate on the basis of past certificate issued by a separate Board which was recognised, and not on the basis of result of Class X of the U.P. Board, appellant derived no advantage from his examination of U.P. Board while seeking admission in Intermediate course. From any angle matter is to be looked into, impugned orders dated April 20, 2011 and May 10, 2011 passed by respondents are null and void, apart from fact that they are in violation of principles of natural justice.
Appeal is, accordingly, allowed with costs by quashing impugned orders and reversing impugned judgment of High Court. Appellant shall, accordingly, be entitled to all consequential benefits.
Result – Appeal allowed with costs.
Judgment :
A.K. Sikri, J.
Leave granted. Matter is finally heard at this stage itself with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The appellant herein appeared in the Intermediate Examination conducted by Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P., Allahabad in the year 2002 and successfully cleared the said examination. On that basis, he pursued the Graduation and passed Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) in the year 2005. Thereafter, he even successfully completed his Post-Graduation course i.e. Masters of Arts (M.A.) in the year 2007 with a desire to pursue further studies. He even joined LL.B. course and successfully cleared LL.B. examinations also in the year 2011. He had the ambition to get himself enrolled as an Advocate so as to pursue the legal profession. However, before he could do that, respondent-authorities inflicted upon him a big blow in the form of canceling his intermediate results of the year 2002 which examination was conducted by Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad. Order to this effect, without putting the appellant to any notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing, was passed nine years after the said exam with the direction to confiscate his Certificate. The effect of the aforesaid action of the respondent was not only take away the result of the Intermediate Examination, but it also nullified further courses which he had pursued and passed in the meantime.
3. The reason for canceling the said examination by the Regional Secretary, U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Examination (hereinafter referred to as the 'U.P. Board'), Varanasi was that the appellant had simultaneously appeared in two examinations, one of the U.P. Board and other of Sanskrit Board with respect to Class X and equivalent examination and it was not permissible for the appellant to appear in two examinations conducted by two different Boards simultaneously.
4. The appellant, aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated April 20, 2011 passed by the Regional Secretary, Intermediate Education Board, Varanasi (respondent No. 3), preferred a representation dated May 10, 2011 before the Director, Education (Secondary), Lucknow (respondent No. 2). This representation was also addressed to respondent No. 3. Request was made to both respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to allow him to present his case and give him an opportunity of hearing. However, nothing was heard on this representation and instead consequential orders dated May 18, 2011 were passed giving effect to earlier orders dated April 20, 2011, thereby confiscating the Certificates of Award in favour of the appellant.
5. The aforesaid actions of the respondents forced the appellant to challenge the said orders dated April 10, 2011 and May 18, 2011 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, however, dismissed the writ petition vide orders dated July 08, 2013. Intra-court appeal filed against the said judgment before the Division Bench also met the same fate inasmuch as vide impugned judgment dated January 22, 2014, the appeal of the appellant has been dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court, thereby affirming the orders of the Single Judge. A perusal of the orders of the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench would reflect that the courts below have gone primarily by the fact that since the appellant admitted that he appeared in two streams in two different Boards in the year 2000, this action on the part of the appellant was contrary to the Regulations and, therefore, the orders canceling the exam were rightly passed by the respondents.
6. Before us, Mr. Pradeep Kant, learned senior counsel for the appellant has made a neat legal argument. He submits that though the impugned judgment proceeds on the basis that appearing in two examinations simultaneously for the same year is violation of the Regulations of the Board, this reason given by the High Court is clearly
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.