The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the decision of the respondent Board of Secondary Education dated 17.12.2012, which limited students to two continuous opportunities to clear the D.E1.Ed. Examination, and the emphasis on the requirement of continuous attempts.

R.S. JHA, J.

1. The petitioners have filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondent authorities to permit all the petitioners to appear in the Supplementary Examination of the D.E1.Ed., first and second year course respectively by treating the attempt as a first chance.

2. The facts on the basis of which the present petition has been filed are that the petitioner nos. 1 to 6 have taken admission in the D.E1.Ed. course and at present are studying in the second year of the said course in the respondent no.2 institution, whereas petitioner nos. 7 to 10 are studying in the first year of the D.E1.Ed. course in the aforesaid institution, which is a private unaided institution and is said to be recognized by the NCTE.

3. Undisputedly, all the petitioners, whether studying in the first year or the second year, were unable to clear the first year or second year main examination, as the case may be, in the first attempt and obtained supplementary. It is also averred in the petition that the petitioners could not appear in the next succeeding supplementary examination on account of non-communication of the date of the examination to the petitioners. In the present petition the petitioners have also stated that it is not a matter of dispute that the petitioners are denied opportunity to appear in the aforesaid supplementary examination because the petitioners did not complete the requisite number of teaching days.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that denial of such opportunity to the petitioners is contrary to law as the petitioners have a right and are entitled for two opportunities to appear in the supplementary examination for clearing the subject. It is submitted that the petitioners could not appear in the first supplementary examination which was conducted in the last week of November 2016 on account of the fact that they were not in touch with the respondent no.2 institution and were living in their respective interior remote villages and the management of the respondent no.2 institution did not properly inform the petitioners of the last date of submission of the examination form or the precise date of the supplementary examination to be conducted by the respondent PSC. It is stated that the schedule of the examination was not published in the newspaper nor any intimation was sent to the petitioners. It is stated that when the petitioners contacted the respondent no.2 institution sometime in the second week of December 2016, they learnt that the last date for filling the supplementary examination form had expired on 8.12.2016. It is alleged that due to carelessness on the part of the respondent no.2 institution, the petitioners could not fill up the examination form or appear in the supplementary examination for clearing the subject. It is stated that the petitioners thereafter collectively filed a representation before the authorities but were informed by the institution that they cannot be permitted to appear in the Supplementary Examination because of the fact that the chance to do so that was available to them in December 2016 had already lapsed.

5. It is submitted that the petitioners are entitled to appear in the supplementary examination as, in accordance with the clarification given by the Board of Secondary Education, a student has a right to clear the first or second year examination by availing two chances; first in the main examination and the second chance through supplementary examination. It is submitted that as the petitioners have availed of the chance to appear in the main examination and were not able to clear the same, they are entitled to a second chance by appearing in the supplementary examination which is being denied to them, hence appropriate directions be issued in this regard.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length. The issue as to whether the petitioners can avail more than two chances to clear the first or second year D.E1.Ed. examination