IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 29937 of 2010(N)
1. AMRITA BENOY, AGED 18,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. REGIONAL OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION,
For Petitioner :SRI.PAULSON THOMAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :29/09/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO.29937 OF 2010(N)
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of September, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner passed Plus two from a school affiliated to the
respondents in the year 2010. Ext.P1 is the mark list. According
to the petitioner, she wanted to appear again in the examination
for improving her marks in some of the subjects including
Mathematics. Although she obtained an application form from the
respondents, having regard to the provisions in clause 44(1) of
the Examination Bye Laws, petitioner submits that she is ineligible
to appear for improvement for the reason that she is pursuing her
higher studies. It is in this background that this writ petition is
filed challenging clause 44(1) of the Examination Bye Laws.
2. Clause 44(i) of the Examination Bye Laws reads as under.
(i) A candidate who has passed an examination of the
Board may reappear for improvement of performance
in one or more subjects in the main examination in
the succeeding year only; however, a candidate who
has passed an examination of the Board under
Vocational Scheme may reappear for improvement of
performance in one or more subject in the main
examination in the succeeding year and the following
year provided they have not pursued higher studies in
the meantime. They will appear as private candidates.
Those reappearing for the whole examination may
however appear as regular school candidates also if
admitted by the school as regular student.”
WPC.No. 29937/2010
:2 :
3. This provision shows that only those candidates who are
not perusing higher studies are eligible to appear in an
examination, for improving their marks. Obviously, since the
petitioner is perusing her higher studies, she is ineligible. Such a
provision has been incorporated in the Regulation for the
reason that, if a student who is pursuing higher studies is allowed
to appear for improvement of the subject of the lower classes, the
student having undergone courses of higher level, the knowledge
and capacity of the student cannot be same or equivalent as
compared to the students of the concerned class, who are not
pursing their higher studies and appearing for the examination
along with him. What is to be assessed in the understanding
capacity and knowledge of the student. This will not be possible
if the student concerned in undergoing higher courses. This is to
avoid this disparity, above provision is incorporated in the
Examination Bye Laws. Such a restrictive provision, cannot be
said to be arbitrary for any reason and therefore I am not
persuaded to agree with the learned Counsel for the petitioner
that the provision is illegal.
WPC.No. 29937/2010
:3 :
4. Even otherwise, the provision for revaluation,
improvement etc. are covered by the rules framed and if there is
no rule providing such facilities or if the Rules are conditional as in
this case, a student has no right to complain of the same.
In that view of the matter, the writ petition is only to be
dismissed and is dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/