ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
K.C. AGARWAL, K.M. DAYAL, JJ.
Kedar Lal Verma - Appellant
Versus
The Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Education & Anr. - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 1605 of 1979
Decided On : 27-08-1979
JUDGMENT
K.C. Agarwal, J. - Sri Kedar Lal Verma, the petitioner appeared at the High School Examination of the U. P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Allahabad held in the year 1977. The petitioner obtained the marks-sheet from the Government Intermediate College, Peepalkot, District Pithauragarh. In the said marks sheet the marks secured by the petitioner in the various subjects offered by him were as under:--
| fo"k;ksa ds uke | izFke iz'u i= | f}rh; iz'u i= | r`rh; iz'u i= | ;ksx | iz;ksxkRed | ;ksx | iw.kkd | |
| 1- | fgUnh | 17 | 12 | 19 | 48 | 100 | ||
| 2- | xf.kr | 31 | 11 | 42 | 100 | |||
| 3- | foKku | 08 | 11 | 19 | 12 | 31 | 100 | |
| 4- | dks"kfoKku | 09 | 15 | 24 | 10 | 34 | 100 | |
| 5- | vUxzsth | 20 | 17 | 37 | 100 | |||
| lEiw.kZ ;ksx vadks rFkk 'kCnksa esa 120@500 ,d lkS ckuos ek= | ||||||||
ijh{kk Qy vuqrh.kZ It is common case of the parties that on the marks secured, the petitioner could not be declared passed the High School Examination, But as against the column meant for being notified as pass or fail, the marks-sheet given to him mentioned that he had passed the examination. On the basis of the aforesaid marks-sheet, the petitioner claimed that he got himself admitted in the Intermediate in the Government Intermediate College, Luck-now. As the original marks-sheet, the petitioner claimed to have been supplied to him, had been lost, he applied for the duplicate marks-sheet. The duplicate marks-sheet issued to him declared that the petitioner had failed in the High School Examination. Thereupon the petitioner filed the present Writ petition on 27-2-79.
2. In the counter-affidavit filed on be-half of the U. P, Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Allahabad, the fact that the petitioner had been declared successful in the first marks-sheet issued to him, has not been clearly denied. The averment, however, is that on the marks obtained, the petitioner could not be declared to have passed the examination. The plea taken is that the petitioner was not entitled to take the benefit of the clerical mistake in the marks-sheet. In support of its case that the petitioner could not be declared passed, the plea taken is that one of the subjects offered by the petitioner was General Science. According to the regulation framed by the U. P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Allahabad, a student offering Science is required to secure 33% both in practical and in theory but as the petitioner had obtained only 19 marks in theory as against 24 which he ought to have obtained, the petitioner had not passed the examination.
3. The main ground raised, in support of the writ petition by Sri M. S. Negi, counsel appearing for the petitioner, was that the U. P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Allahabad, having declared that the petitioner had passed the High School Examination, could not be permitted to resile from the representation made to the petitioner. Counsel contended that on account of the representation made by the Board, the petitioner altered his position and acted to his detriment by joining Intermediate classes at Lucknow. Counsel's argument was that if the petitioner had been informed that he had not passed the examination in 1977, he would have not wasted his money and time in getting himself admitted in the Intermediate course. In substance, the plea raised by the petitioner is that of estoppel.
4. Before we deal with the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of estoppel, we consider it necessary to refer to some of the provisions of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act for deciding the controversy involved. u/s 7 of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the Board has power amongst others to conduct the examination at the end of the High School and Intermediate course. The Board is entitled to frame regulations and to issue instructions from time to time needed for the successful holding of the examination. It has also got the power to prescribe the minimum marks which a student has to secure in order to be successful at the examination. In exercise of that power the Board h
Shri Krishnan Vs. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra
Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.