ORDER
Syed Bashir-ud-Din, J.
1. Ms. Safiya Farhat a regular student of 10th Class of Government High School Charisharief of District Budgam appeared in Matriculation examination for the Session 1999-2000 under Roll No. 202221 as a regular candidate at examination centre of Government Higher Secondary School Charisharief. She took examination in all five subjects on schedule dates. For the purpose she filed prescribed form as a regular student of the school showing her age as 30-7-1987. Her examination form along with other forms of other regular students of the school was duly filled in and processed after scrutiny. It was only thereafter petitioner was allowed to appear in the examination and awarded the Roll No. No objection was taken to her taking examination in all the papers. When the results of the matric examination came to be declared in the result notification against her name and Roll No. she was shown as a case of disputed eligibility (Annexure-P2). She prays for declaration/ publication of her result.
2. Respondents, Board of School Education, Srinagar and its Secretary have in reply admitted that the said Safia Farhat filled her examination form showing her age as 30-7-1987, as a regular student and she was permitted to appear in the Matriculation Examination for the Session 1999-2000. She appeared in all the papers. After she took examination, the Board found that she did not possess the eligibility laid down by Rule 15 in Chapter 10 of J & K State Board of School Education Regulations, 1992. inasmuch as she was below 14 years of age when she appeared in the Secondary School Examination (10th Class). It was for this reason that her eligibility was shown disputed and her result has been withheld. The Board has averred that large number of candidates appeared in the Matriculation examination from various educational institutions and the concerned institutions filled up the examination forms of the examinees. The eligibility as regards age too is checked by the Institutions. It is only after the forms are forwarded to the Board that the Board checks the eligibility. The minute scrutiny of the papers and the forms is not possible. The Board presumes eligibility when it receives forms from institutions and allows candidates to appear in the examination. It is only when Board checked the eligibility subsequently that it found petitioner was not eligible and, therefore, her result was not declared.
3. The sole legal question involved is whether Board can withhold the result of a candidate here Ms. Safiya Farhat. once it allows her to appear in the examination, despite the candidate showing and incorporating the correct age in the form, which is below the prescribed age for appearance in the Matriculation examination.
4. Mr. G. Murtaza Dar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once Board of School Education allowed petitioner to appear as a result student in all prescribed
subjects of the said Higher Secondary School Examination, knowing well that the petitioner was below 14 years of age and that she had correctly filled and incorporated her actual age (30-7-1987) in her form from its Charlsharief Govt. Higher Secondary School and for the purpose allotted even Roll No. to her, the respondents are stopped from with holding her result. Mr. G. Murtaza cites Shri Krishan v. Kurukshetra University Kurukshetra, AIR 1976 SC 376 for the preposition that once a student is allowed to take examination his/her candidature cannot be withdrawn and the result of the candidate cannot be withheld. He also cites Ambika Prasad Mohanty and etc. v. Orissa Engineering College, AIR 1989 Orissa 173, in support of his submission, that once a student is given admission in an Institute (here the examination in Matriculation), the respondents are stopped from cancelling the admission of the student.
5. Mr. H. I. Hussain, in answer submits that as the age of a student at the time of appearing in the Secondary School Examination (10th Class) is statutorily prescribed, therefore, no benefit can accrue to a student who has appeared in the examination, notwithstanding, such ineligibility. The learned counsel further submits that mandamus, cannot be issued for doing some thing contrary to law. In support of his submissions he cites State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra, AIR 1996 SC 2173.
6. The parties are not at variance with regard to the facts that Safia Farhat while appearing as a regular student under Roll No. 202221 in Higher Secondary School Examination (10th Class) for Session 1999-2000, was below 14 years of age, as her date of birth recorded in the examination form and admitted by the other side is 30-7-1987 and her form and candidature for the examination were accepted. She was allowed to take examination in all the prescribed subjects and completed the examination. It was only when her results came to be declared/published that her result was withheld on the ground of disputed eligibility relateable to her age.
7. In para 1 of the reply filed by the Board of School Education (respondent 1 and 2); it is averred that J & K State Board of School Education Regulations, 1992 are framed under J & K State Board of School Education Act. 1975. Rule 15 in Chapter 10 of the
above regulations prescribe eligibility for admission to the examinations in School Examination/Higher Secondary Examination Part-1/Higher Secondary Examination Part II, proviso to Clause XII of this rule reads as under :–
“xii) …….. Provided further that no
candidate who has not attained the age of 14 + shall be allowed to appear in the Secondary School Examination at any time.”
The restriction of +14 age is for appearance in the Secondary School Examination and not if the Board allowed a candidate in violation of this rule to appear and take examination in all the papers despite the actual age shown being below 14, to withhold and refuse to declare the result. Respondents by their own conduct are stopped from withdrawing the admission and taking of examination of the candidate who is not at fault and has not resorted to any trickery or stratagem. The student having shown age correctly and while depicting it so having been allotted Roll No., the Examination Centre and permitted to appear in all prescribed subjects to complete the examination, the respondents by their own conduct are estopped to withhold the result.
8. In Shri Krishan v. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra (AIR 1976 SC 376) (supra), in the context of examination of the student, the Supreme Court speaking through late S.M. Fazl Ali (J), observed that once the candidate is allowed to take the examination, rightly or wrongly, then the statute which empowers the University to withdraw the candidature of the applicant has worked itself out and the candidate cannot be refused admission subsequently for any infirmity which should have been looked into before giving the candidate permission to appear.
9. The contention that because of in-management difficulties and problems, of the Board referred in para 2 of the counter, the scrutiny of forms and examination papers, is impended and obstructed. The scrutiny of the examination form of petitioner by the Board to detect the infirmity/ineligibility of the candidate qua age to appear in the examination, is no ground to withhold the result of the candidate. Contextually the observations made by the Supreme Court in para 9 of the above case of Shri Krishan v. Kurukshetra University (AIR 1976 SC 376)
are reproduced for the benefit of the Board:–
“…….. .If only the University authorities would have exercised proper diligence and care by scrutinising the admission form when it was sent by the Head of the Department to the University as far back as December, 1971 they could have detected the defects or Infirmities from which the form suffered according to the University Statute. The Head of the Department of Law was also guilty of dereliction of duty in not scrutinising the admission form of the appellant before he forwarded the same to the University. ……”
10. A Division Bench in Ambika Prasad Mohanty and etc. v. Orissa Engineering College (AIR 1989 SC 173) (supra) relying on Bireswar Mohapatra’s case, AIR 1977 NOC 62 observed that where the petitioner took the examination but subsequently his result was withheld on the ground that he fell short of percentage, the respondent-Engineering College was stopped from cancelling the admission to the examination and on the premise allowed the writ petition.
11. The contention of Mr. H. I. Hussain, learned counsel for respondents, that the writ is not maintainable as the Court cannot issue a direction to respondents contrary to the age rule in Chapter 10 of the J & K State Board of School Education Regulations, referred above, needs to be examined. Sub-rule (xii) in Rule 15 of Chapter 10 of the regulations in conjunction with the proviso thereto, lays a statutory condition that a candidate cannot be allowed to appear in the Secondary School Examination unless his/her is +14 age which position is further clarified by the notifications Annexures -A and B to the counter. This restriction of age is confined only to appearance in the examination, but does not provide for contingency, where an under age candidate has been allowed by the Board of School Education to appear in all subjects and complete the examination after the candidate’s form with declaration/entry of under age is accepted and Roll No. allotted for the examination. The rule or the notification nowhere provides any consequence which may flow from allowing a candidate to appear in the Secondary School Examination (10th Class) even when such a candidate did not attain +14 age on the relevant date/time period. Obviously, it is a case of
estoppel where the Board or its authorities are precluded and estopped from cancelling/ withdrawing the candidature of the student who so appeared and completed the examination. In such a contingency result cannot be withheld.
12. Viewed thus, it is not a case where the Court is to issue directions or mandamus to J & K State Board of School Education preventing or restraining it from enforcing the provisions of regulation or to go against the provisions of law. The State of U.R v. Harish Chandra (AIR 1996 SC 2173) (supra) is a case where the issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was Justified in issuing a mandamus to the appellant to make recruitment of the respondents, who were on select list of 1987. when even the said list had spent its life by passage of time. It is in this context that the Apex Court observed that the appointing authority cannot issue a direction of mandamus in making appointments of the respondents contrary to the provisions of law including the statutory recruitment rules governing the field.
13. In result, petition is allowed, A mandamus is issued to respondents to declare the result of Safia Farhat, examinee of Secondary School Examination (10th Class) with the observation that this order would not be interpreted to mean that the said Safia Farhat is to be benefitted in the matter of age in any subsequent examination(s) beyond matriculation examination in question of Board or University, If otherwise she is not eligible to take those examinations for not being of age prescribed thereto under law.
