KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. Oral:

1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks directions to direct the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to allow the son of the petitioner to appear in the Secondary School Examination, 2009.

2. Brief facts of the case as set out by the petitioner and relevant for deciding the present petition are that the son of the petitioner, Niwas Anand, is a student of the respondent no.3 school since class VI. In 2008, he was promoted to class X and he duly filled in all his forms and completed all other procedural formalities for appearing in the Secondary School Examination, conducted by respondent no.2 CBSE. Vide letter dated 20.9.2008 the petitioner was informed about certain acts of misconduct committed by his son. After receiving the said letter the petitioner met the school authorities and the matter was settled and his son was advised to study from home and was assured that he would be allowed to take all the subsequent examinations. Consequently, the petitioner kept on depositing the entire requisite school fee but was shocked when his son was not allowed to sit in the school examination held in December, 2009 and also in the practical examination held in January, 2010. The petitioner then served a legal notice to the school and was again given the assurance that his son would be allowed to sit in the board exam. However, the school refused to handover the Admit card issued by CBSE to the petitioner’s son and hence feeling aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

3. Vide order dated 26.2.2009, directions were given to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to issue the Roll Number/Admit Card to the son of the petitioner namely Niwas Anand to enable him to appear in the 10th class examination and pursuant to the said interim directions, he had appeared in the said examination. Vide order dated 8.5.2009, this court also directed that his result of 10th class examination shall be kept in sealed cover.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s son, Niwas Anand was a regular student of the respondent no.3 school since class 6th and that he was regularly promoted to higher classes. Counsel further submits that Niwas had duly filled the application form for his 10th class exams and had completed all procedural formalities for appearing in the final exams to be conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education. Counsel also submits that the petitioner had also deposited the necessary school fee for the entire academic year 2008-2009. Counsel further submits that the respondent school had issued a warning letter dated 20.9.2008 alleging some misconduct on the part of Niwas and thereafter he was not allowed to sit in his class. Counsel further submits that although the petitioner’s son was assured that no disciplinary action would be taken against him but he was advised by the school to study from home instead of studying in the school. Counsel further submits that accordingly Niwas continued to study from home but the petitioner regularly paid the school fee. Counsel further submits that the name of Niwas was sent by the school to the CBSE for issuance of necessary Admit Card and in fact the Admit Card was issued by the CBSE in his favour. Counsel thus submits that once the said admit card was issued in favour of Niwas then he could not have been debarred by the respondents to take his final exams.

5. Opposing the present petition, Mr. Atul Kumar, counsel for respondent no.2 submits that the petitioner’s son was not eligible to sit in 10th class exam as he failed to maintain the required 75% attendance. Counsel submits that the petitioner’s son had attained only 47.40% attendance in the 10th standard from the commencement of the session till 31st December 2008. Counsel placed reliance on Rule 13.1(i) & (ii) of the Examination Bye-Laws of the CBSE and submits that because of the shortage of attendance, petitioner’s son was