Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHREE RAM LAXMAN JANKI INTER COLLEGE versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Shree Ram Laxman Janki Inter College v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 77350 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 13130 (7 August 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court no. 40

Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 77350 of 2005

Shree Ram Laxman Inter college patra Sandawa Kandpur Dehat through its Principal............................................................petitioner

Versus

State of U.P. and others....................................Respondents.

Hon. S.N.Srivastava, J.

Present petition has been filed by Sri Ram Laxman Janki Inter College through its Principal for the relief of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue 237 forms for the students who were then to appear in the High School Examination 2006 attended with further relief of according permission to appear in the said examination 2006.

It would appear from the record that after exchange of counter and rejoinder affidavits, the Court, considering the immediacy of the interim relief, passed the order as an interim measure, with the consent of learned counsel for the Board, permitting the students to appear as private candidates and by way of abundant precautions, issued peremptory directions to be observed in compliance by both the parties. The substance of guidelines is abstracted below.

"(1) Adequate arrangements for providing independent invigilators (who may be teachers from colleges other than the petitioner- college) be made by the District Inspector of Schools, for holding the examination in a fair manner. Students would be allotted center other than the institution in question.

(2) The District magistrate shall ensure that responsible Sector Magistrates are appointed for supervising the examinations of all the colleges of district of Kanpur Dehat and more particularly of the college in question.

(3) The District Magistrate as well as the educational authorities shall be free to adopt all other methods for checking the use of unfair means, which may include providing for video photography, inside and outside the examination center, whenever required.

(4) No outsider should be permitted in the vicinity of the examination centers and only the invigilators and the candidates possession admit card/photo identity cards be permitted inside the campus of the center.

(5) Where treasury challans or other documents are found forged and bogus, F.I.R. be lodged against the concerned Principal and the students."

It would further transpire from the aforestated interim order that the Court directed the matter to be listed after six weeks on which date, learned counsel for the board was required to file affidavit indicating therein the action has been taken against the institution in question for all the alleged irregularities. It was further directed that the result of students would not be declared except with the leave of the Court.

In observance of the aforestated order, a subsequent counter affidavit has been filed sworn by one Ram Chandra Mishra, Asstt. Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Regional office Allahabad. I have been taken through that subsequent counter affidavit.

It may be recalled here that the College in question is an unaided College imparting Education upto XII standard and further it bears no dispute that the Institution is covered by the provisions of Intermediate Education Act. The factual matrix that transpires from a close scrutiny of the averments made in the writ petition is that initially 524 forms duly filled in by students for the High School examination then to be conducted in the year 2005 were claimed to have been submitted by the Institution for onward transmission to the office of the Joint Director Education after observing in compliance all the requisite formalities. It would further transpire from the averments that it was communicated to the end of the petitioner by the office of respondent no.2 vide its letter dated 22.10.2005 that in all 287 forms had been received at its end instead of 524 forms. In response to the said letter, the petitioner demanded supply of 237 more forms for being resubmitted to their end after observing in compliance the requisite formalities. When repeated communication yielded no response, the petitioner was constrained to institute the present petition seeking the relief of mandamus to the respondents to supply 237 forms for students for enabling the students to appear in the High School examination. In the initial counter affidavit, the Board pointed accusing fingers at the Institution of having committed various irregularities and it would thus appear that it is in this backdrop that the Court by means of its order dated 1.3.2006 directed that the students be permitted to appear in the High School Examination as private candidates and further required the Board to file counter affidavit intimating therein the action taken against the institution for the alleged irregularities.

From a scrutiny of subsequent counter affidavit filed pursuant to the direction of the Court, it would appear that instead of informing the Court of action taken against the institution for the alleged irregularities, the Board side-tracked and embarked upon detailing certain alleged acts of omission and commission on the part of the Institution which in my considered view are too insignificant to merit action and cannot be heightened to the extent of irregularities capable of warranting against the Institution in view of discussion (infra). In para 3 of the counter affidavit, it has been spelt out that the last date fixed for submitting the forms for appearing in the High School Examination was 21.9.2005 which was not abided by the Institution and further that the forms of regular students were to be routed through District Inspector of Schools which having not been done by the college, there was no question of permitting the students to appear in the High School Examination 2006 as regular students and lastly, the seemingly explicatory plea is that pursuant to the order of the Court dated 1.3.2006, the students have already been permitted to appear in the High School Examination 2006. In para 5, the substance of what has been averred is that the forms submitted by the aforesaid college were not submitted to the end of District Inspector of Schools and therefore, roll numbers as prayed were not allotted. From a close scrutiny of the aforesaid averments, it would transpire that there is nothing on record to be eloquent of the fact that any action has been initiated against the Institution despite forceful assertions of irregularities in the initial counter affidavit. In the circumstances, the Court has no option but to opt for the view that irregularities alleged in the initial counter affidavit of the Board were too insignificant tow arrant action.

In the instant case, it would crystallize that the students were permitted to appear and now only result remains to be declared. In the above conspectus, it would appear that the assertions of alleged irregularities stands mellowed down inasmuch as despite order of the Court no action has been shown to have been initiated against the institution on the basis of alleged irregularities. Further from a perusal of the record, it would also transpires that none of the guidelines set down by the Court have been observed in flouting and the examination has been conducted quite fairly and squarely. Therefore in the circumstances there remains no obstacle operating in the way of declaration of result of the students and further there is no valid justification for keeping the students on tenter-hook by further delaying declaration of the results. This Courtis further of the view that no error has been pointed out which may be attributable to anyof the students of the Institution. In the circumstances, any further delay in declaration of result would be fraught with grave consequences and with deleterious effect on the future and career of the students.

In the above conspectus, I feel called to take the view that there is no valid ground to postpone declaration of the result of the examination any further held in the year 2006 otherwise it would spell disaster for the students who one year would be at stake. It would therefore be in the fitness of things to direct the Board to pronounce the result of students who appeared in the High School examination 2006 from the petitioner-institution.

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of attended with direction that the Board of High School and Intermediate shall declare that result of the students forthwith preferably within a period not exceeding one month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.

Before parting, this Court further feels called to clarify that the view taken in this judgment has been rendered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and this would not constitute precedent for other petitions.

SU/MH

7.8.2006


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.