Back
2012 Supreme(Bom) 315
2012 (3) ALL MR 393
In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. MAJMUDAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. VARALE
Ku. Rakshasingh d/o Jagdishsingh Bais
Versus
Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, through its Divisional Secretary & Others
WRIT PETITION NO. 540 OF 2012
Decided on : 10-02-2012
For the Petitioner:P.R. Puri, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2, Anand Parchure, R3, Anand Jaiswal, Advocates.
Headnote:Constitution of India - Article 226 - Admission to Higher Secondary course. Educational institutions at time of admitting student in a particular course must properly find out eligibility of student at threshold or within few months after enrolling student provisionally.
The State Government may direct the Institutions to comply the aforesaid aspect strictly regarding eligibility of the student at the earliest if not at the time of admitting the student provisionally. The respondent-MS Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education is directed to publish and inform the institutions in advance by giving advertisement in widely circulated news papers that if any educational institution wrongly admits such student, even if such student is not eligible to get admission in a particular stream, such institution shall be liable to be derecognized by the Board. The Board is further directed to comply with this direction by informing the educational institutions in the entire State forthwith so that a bona fide student may not be deprived of getting admission if the admission seat is filled in by a student who was not entitled to be admitted. In the instant case, since the petitioner is also contributory to the misrepresentation by submitting incorrect information regarding the percentage of marks, which she has obtained, in the admission form, Court would not like to assist such petitioner by directing the respondent as otherwise as Article 226 is not meant to assist the person who has resorted to m1’ and illegalities.
Constitution of India - Article 226 - Scope of. No equity can be shown to person, by High Court under Article 226 of Constitution, who has resorted to misrepresentation and illegalities in getting admission in educational institution.
The eligibility criteria to enroll the students in the science stream in 11th standard is 40 percent. The petitioner had secured 38.5 per cent, yet in her application she has mentioned 42 per cent obtained in the 10th standard examination. Even if the management in this case can be said to be negligent in not verifying the marks later on and allowed the petitioner for admission in 11th standard, that itself is not a ground by which any equity can be shown in favour of the student as it is not in dispute that the petitioner has secured admission by making false statement regarding the percentage of marks.
In the matter of education and academic field, the powers of the Court are very limited. Even in a given case, before recommending the institution to consider the case of the student as a special case, Court is also required to consider the conduct of the petitioner. If the student has secured admission on the basis of misrepresentation and by making wrong statement, Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not assist such a petitioner. The petitioner cannot be granted the relief prayed.
(P.B. Majmudar, J.)
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. Shri Anand Parchure, the learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Shri Anand Jaiswal, the learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of the respondent No.3.
2. The petitioner is a student. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed that the decision of the respondent No.1 holding the petitioner not eligible for science stream and that she is not entitled to appear for 12th standard Board Examination in Science Stream, may be set aside and the petitioner may be permitted to appear for Board Examination of 12th standard in Science Stream.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that on the basis of admission form, which she submitted, she was enrolled in standard XI in the Science Stream by the respondent No.3-College. She completed her 11th standard in the college and now when she is about to appear for standard 12th Board Examination, the Board has not accepted her examination form on the ground that the petitioner is not qualified to be admitted in the Science Stream.
4. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that if the College has committed mistake in enrolling the petitioner in Science Stream in 11th standard, the petitioner should not be allowed to suffer. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the College has also issued a certificate that the petitioner is a bona fide student of Science Stream on 30th July, 2011.
5. We have heard both the sides at length and in our view no relief can be given to the petitioner as prayed for in the petition. During the course of hearing, it is pointed to the Court that even though the petitioner had secured less than 40 percentage of marks in 10th Standard, while applying for admission in 11th standard in the Science stream, in her application, she has falsely mentioned the percentage as 42 per cent. The eligibility criteria to enroll the students in the Science stream in 11th standard is 40 per cent. The petitioner had secured 38.5 per cent, yet in her application she has mentioned 42 per cent obtained in the 10th standard examination.
6. In a given case, if it is found that the institution negligently admitted the student and if such student has practically completed the course, the Court may, on sympathetic view, permit the student to appear as an exceptional case for the examination. However, the factual aspect in the present case is different. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.3-College has pointed out that the college was misguided at the time of admitting the petitioner in 11th standard in Science Stream as in her application form, she had stated that she has obtained 42 per cent of marks in the last examination. The said form is placed on record with the reply as Annexure-R3-1 by the College. It is pointed out to the Court that the requirement for admitting such student in the Science Stream is that he or she should have minimum 40 per cent of marks in terms of Regulation 79(16) of the Rules. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also fairly submits that such requirement is there and unless the student is having 40 per cent of marks, such student cannot be enrolled in the Science Stream. Along with the admission form, the petitioner has also attached Grade Sheet wherein in the last examination i.e. Board Examination of 10th standard, in Science subject, the petitioner has obtained D-Grade. It is pointed out to the Court that D-Grade is given to the student who has secured marks up to 40 per cent, meaning thereby that the petitioner wanted to convey to the institution that she has secured marks which are required for the purposes of enrolling in the Science stream even though admittedly she had secured 38.5 per cent and was not eligible to get herself admitted in the S
