The amendment to the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, does not apply retrospectively to invalidate qualifications obtained prior to its enactment.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

Heard Sri. Seemant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Archana Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.5.

2. In present case following dates and events are not under dispute:

 3. Relevant Clause 15 of above referred Circular dated 18.1.2021 is mentioned hereinafter:

4. The relevant part of unamended and amended (by Notification dated 5.3.2014) of Viniyam Adhyay 12 of Intermediate Education Act, 1921 is mentioned hereinafter, that earlier at Serial No.20, School Leaving Certificate from Nepal was eligible to get admission in Intermediate Examination in India. However, by referred amendment it was deleted. There is no dispute that the petitioner has passed Intermediate Examination before above referred amendment.

5. For reference relevant part of notification dated 5.3.2014, wherein before amendment and after amendment is reproduced hereinafter:

6. The counsel for petitioner and respondents are in agreement, so far as above referred position after amendment of year 2014, i.e. High School from Nepal was no longer eligible for Intermediate Examination in India.

7. The controversy in present case is that whether amendment carried out in 2014 would be enforceable retrospectively i.e. petitioner who had passed intermediate in 1998 i.e. much prior to 2014, would also become ineligible and consequently her Intermediate Examination would became ineffective.

8. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that effect of amendment would be prospective only, whereas according to learned counsel for respondents, it would have retrospective effect and it would have adverse effect on petitioner also.

9. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the records.

10. The notification dated 5.3.2014 does not disclose, date of its enforcement. A NOTE mentioned at the end of Notification, which is reproduced hereinafter, would clarify the position that few steps were required to be taken i.e. respective Rules be required to be amended, thereafter it was required to be published on website.

11. On basis of above referred undisputed facts, when petitioner has passed Intermediate Examination, in India in 1998, School Leaving Certificate from State of Nepal was recognized eligibility for admission in Intermediate in India and said certificate from Nepal was de-recognized in 2014 by way of amendment i.e. after sixteen years. As referred above, amendment does not qualify with words retrospectively and as per NOTE it has to be implemented after due amendment in rules etc. There is no reference in regard to Students from Nepal who have already passed Intermediate Examination in India.

12. The impugned order is passed on basis of Clause 15 of Circular dated 18.1.2021 which was issued in regard to ambiguities occurred in examination process of