1
4 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1483/2006
Poosa Ram Saini
Vs.
Board of Secondary Education & Ors.
Date of Order :: 28th January 2009.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Mr.Manoj Bohra,for the petitioner.
Mr.B.L.Bhati,for the respondents.
....
BY THE COURT
This writ petition was filed on 17.03.2006 with the
submissions that the petitioner was a student of 10th standard
studying in the respondent No.2 school and he filled up the
examination form whereupon the respondent No.1 Board sent
the admission card having the petitioner’s roll number
0443973. The petitioner stated the grievance that the
admission card was illegally detained by the respondent No.2
and, though permitted to appear in the Secondary School
Examination 2006 on 9th and 10th March 2006, he was not
allowed to appear thereafter in other appers.
The submissions and contentions on the part of the
petitioner were noticed by this Court on 20.03.2006 and, while
issuing notices, by way of an interim order, the petitioner was
permitted to take examination of the remaining papers at the
centre and on the roll number on which he was permitted to
take two papers earlier subject, of course, to the final decision
of this writ petition. This Court observed and ordered thus:
2
“Learned counsel for the petitioner contends
that the petitioner was earlier issued admission card
for taking Secondary School Examination conducted
by the respondent No.1, however, the School
concerned [respondent No.2] is alleged to have
returned the admission card on the allegation of the
petitioner not fulfilling the requirements of the
minimum attendance.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends
that in the first place the School concerned had
informed the Board about the completion of the
attendance requirements and the school authorities
then informed the guardian of the petitioner that he
was being deprived of appearing in examination
because of his poor performance that might lead to
adverse result. Learned counsel informs that the
petitioner has already taken two papers of the
examination and if deprived of his chance to appear
in remaining papers, he would suffer irreparable
injury.
Issue notice to the respondents to show
cause as to why this petition be not admitted.
In the meanwhile and until further orders,
petitioner shall not be prevented from taking the
examination of the remaining papers at the centre
and on the roll number on which he had been
permitted to take two earlier papers. However, it is
made clear that this shall only be an interim
arrangement and shall remain subject to the final
decision of this writ petition and shall not invest the
petitioner with any additional right.”
It appears that the petitioner could not take three papers
i.e., Sanskrit, Science-I, and Science-II that were held prior to
the interim order passed by this Court and he moved a second
stay application on 22.07.2006 seeking directions against the
respondents that he may be permitted to take such papers in
supplementary examination. This Court, however, proceeded
to reject the second stay application on 01.08.2006; and
declined the relief with the observations that the petitioner
having not completed the attendance, no permission could be
3
given him to appear in the supplementary examination.
Even though this matter has remained pending for
service on the respondent No.3 (the District Education Officer,
Jodhpur) but a reply to the show cause notice has been filed
on behalf of the respondent No.1 and it has categorically been
stated that the petitioner’s was a case of unreasonable
shortage of attendance inasmuch as he attended only 162 out
of 316 meetings. It is submitted that the petitioner’s attendance
at 51.26% had been well below the required minimum
attendance at 75% and hence, he was not eligible to appear in
the examination and in fact, he was never permitted to take
the said examination.
The facts as stated in detail by the respondents about
shortage of the attendance of the petitioner have not been
controverted and in view of such facts, the petitioner is
obviously not entitled to any relief and there appears no
reason to keep this writ petition pending for service of the
respondent No.3.
Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.
s.soni