SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Bom) 678

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.C. Gupte, Surendra P Tavade, JJ.
Zahida Khatoon Abdul Kaiyoom - Appellant
Versus
Principal Anjuman I Islam/s Begum Jamila Haji Abdul Haq College Of Home Science & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (L) No. 5977 of 2020
Decided On : 09-02-2021

Advocates appeared:
Sushil Shukla, Advocate, A.G. Kothari, Advocate, Kiran Gandhi, Advocate, Little & Co, Advocate, Milind More, Advocate

Headnote:

CANCELLATION - Class 12th Examination Result - Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards Regulation, 1977 - Rule 92(6) - The court discussed the eligibility of the petitioner to appear for the Class Improvement Scheme and the cancellation of her result for the February/March 2020 examination. The court highlighted the provisions of Rule 92(6) and the Class Improvement Scheme, emphasizing the limitations on the number of attempts and the eligibility criteria. The court also discussed the duty of the educational institutions to verify the eligibility of the students before allowing them to appear for the examination. The court concluded that the petitioner was not eligible to appear for the examination held in February/March 2020 under the Class Improvement Scheme and dismissed the petition.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the cancellation of her result for the class 12th (Science) examination held in February 2020 by the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board. The petitioner had previously appeared for the examination in March 2018 and February 2019 under the Class Improvement Scheme but did not secure the necessary marks. The petitioner's father approached the college for the petitioner to appear for the examination in February 2020, and the college allowed her to fill the form despite being ineligible under the scheme. The Board cancelled the petitioner's result for the February/March 2020 examination, leading to the petitioner approaching the court seeking relief.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner was not eligible to appear for the examination held in February/March 2020 under the Class Improvement Scheme. The court held that the educational institutions should have verified the eligibility of the petitioner before allowing her to appear for the examination. The court also emphasized that the Board was not at fault for allowing the petitioner to appear for the examination, as it relies on colleges for the students' eligibility. The court dismissed the petition, highlighting the petitioner's lack of eligibility and the impermissibility of directing the Board to issue the marksheet and allow the petitioner to prosecute her further studies based on the result of the forbidden examination.

Issues: The issues revolved around the eligibility of the petitioner to appear for the Class Improvement Scheme examination in February/March 2020 and the cancellation of her result by the Board. The court addressed the petitioner's lack of eligibility, the duty of educational institutions to verify student eligibility, and the impermissibility of directing the Board to issue the marksheet and allow the petitioner to prosecute her further studies based on the result of the forbidden examination.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the petitioner's lack of eligibility to appear for the examination held in February/March 2020 under the Class Improvement Scheme. The court emphasized the duty of educational institutions to verify student eligibility before allowing them to appear for the examination and highlighted the impermissibility of directing the Board to issue the marksheet and allow the petitioner to prosecute her further studies based on the result of the forbidden examination.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, concluding that the petitioner was not eligible to appear for the examination held in February/March 2020 under the Class Improvement Scheme and highlighting the impermissibility of directing the Board to issue the marksheet and allow the petitioner to prosecute her further studies based on the result of the forbidden examination.

JUDGMENT

Surendra P. Tavade, J. - Rule. Rule taken up for hearing forthwith by consent of both the parties.

2. The Petitioner challenges the cancellation of her result of class 12th (Science) examination held in the month of February 2020 by Respondent No. 2- Board.

3. In the month of March 2018, the Petitioner appeared for her class 12th (Science) examination, for the first time; she did not score requisite marks for pursuing Medical Education Course. The Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards Regulation, 1977, permits students to attempt improvement of marks secured at previous examination by making two further attempts. The Petitioner appeared for class improvement in 12th examination held in February 2019 but she did not succeed in securing the necessary marks to pursue the Medical Education Course. It is further contended that the Petitioner appeared for the second time to improve her marks in the 12th examination held in February 2020. This time she secured the necessary marks for pursuing Medical Education Course. The result was declared in the month of July 2020. Respondent No. 2 declared such result and marks obtained by the Petitioner were displayed on internet.

4. It is contended that the Petitioner was admitted to 12th examination held in February 2020. She had been issued a hall ticket and appeared for the same and was declared successful by Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 refused to hand over original/physical marksheet and withheld the result. The Petitioner met officers of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on several occasions but nobody gave any response. As the matter was crucial and as the Petitioner's entire education and career was at stake, the Petitioner's father along with the Petitioner has been running from pillar to post to get the physical/original marksheet of the result of the Petitioner declared by Respondent No. 2. The registration for counselling round for securing a seat for medical education at All India Level, had started from 26 October 2020 and the same was in process till 2 November 2020. The physical marksheet of the Petitioner in respect of the results declared by Respondent No. 2 was necessary for registration for the medical course, failing which the Petitioner would have been disqualified. Hence, the Petitioner approached this Court by fling Writ Petition No. 5333 of 2020 seeking reliefs as more particularly prayed therein. The said petition was heard and on the date of hearing of the above writ petition, Respondent No. 2 had circulated a compilation of documents to be relied upon by the Respondent. In the said compilation, Respondent No. 2 had circulated a letter dated 4 September 2020 contending that the Respondent had cancelled the result of the Petitioner. The letter dated 4 September 2020 is a show cause notice issued by Respondent No. 2 to Respondent No. 1 and the same had never been communicated to the Petitioner. Hence, the Petitioner withdrew Writ Petition No. 5333 of 2020 with the leave of the Court to file a fresh petition, impugning the illegal cancellation of her result and/or the examination of the Petitioner for February 2020. The Petitioner thereupon filed the present petition, wherein this Court by an interim order allowed the Petitioner to participate in the counselling round subject to the decision of this petition.

5. It is contended that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have thoroughly and miserably failed to perform their respective duties and for the said reason, the Petitioner was being subjected to undue and uncalled for harassment and admonishment. It is submitted that the action by Respondent No. 2 allegedly cancelling result of the Petitioner in respect of examination conducted by it for class 12th is illegal, void, high handed, malicious, and not binding upon the Petitioner.

6. It is contended that Rule 92(6) of the Regulations of the Board states that the examinee can appear for class improvement examination twice as per amended rules, within the next aca

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top