{"id":59973,"date":"1994-02-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1994-02-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-school-education-vs-arun-rathi-on-9-february-1994"},"modified":"2017-11-10T03:24:46","modified_gmt":"2017-11-09T21:54:46","slug":"board-of-school-education-vs-arun-rathi-on-9-february-1994","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-school-education-vs-arun-rathi-on-9-february-1994","title":{"rendered":"Board Of School Education vs Arun Rathi on 9 February, 1994"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Board Of School Education vs Arun Rathi on 9 February, 1994<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1994 AIR 2336, \t\t 1994 SCR (1) 741<\/div>\n
Author: S Agrawal<\/div>\n
Bench: Agrawal, S.C. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nBOARD OF SCHOOL EDUCATION\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nARUN RATHI\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT09\/02\/1994\n\nBENCH:\nAGRAWAL, S.C. (J)\nBENCH:\nAGRAWAL, S.C. (J)\nVENKATACHALLIAH, M.N.(CJ)\n\nCITATION:\n 1994 AIR 2336\t\t  1994 SCR  (1) 741\n 1994 SCC  (2) 526\t  JT 1994 (2)\t128\n 1994 SCALE  (1)519\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nAGRAWAL, J.- Special leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.   Heard learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
3.   These  appeals raise the question whether\ta  candidate
\nwho  has taken the Senior Secondary Certificate\t Examination
\nof  the\t Board\tof School  Education,  Haryana\t(hereinafter
\nreferred  to  as ‘the Board’) is entitled to  the  award  of
\ngrace  marks so as to enable him to earn  compartment.\t The
\nrespondents   in  these\t appeals  appeared  in\tthe   Senior
\nSecondary  Certificate Examination of the Board held in\t the
\nmonth  of March 1993 but were declared as failed since\tthey
\ndid  not  secure  the  minimum pass  marks  in\ttwo  of\t the
\nsubjects.  They moved the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, by
\nfiling writ petitions under Article 226 of the\tConstitution
\nand  claimed that they should be awarded grace marks and  be
\nplaced under compartment, so as to enable them to appear  in
\nthe  supplementary  examination in one\tpaper  in  September
\n1993.  The said writ petitions have been allowed by the High
\nCourt  by orders dated September 6, 1993 and  September\t 10,
\n1993.\n<\/p>\n
4.   The Board has been constituted under the provisions  of
\nthe Haryana Board of School Education Act, 1969 (hereinafter
\nreferred  to  as  ‘the Act’).  In  exercise  of\t the  powers
\nconferred by Section 19(1) of the Act the Board has made the
\nHaryana\t   Senior    Secondary\t  Certificate\t Examination
\nRegulations,   1990   (hereinafter  referred  to   as\t‘the
\nRegulations’).\t Regulation 26 of the  Regulations  contains
\nthe provisions for awarding of 1% of the aggregate of  marks
\nas   grace  marks  to  the  candidates\tappearing  in\t10+2
\nexamination  to\t be  conducted\tby  the\t Board.\t  The\tsaid
\nRegulation reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “26.   Grace marks-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   If\ta  candidate fails in  one  or\tmore
\n\t      subject(s)  and  the total deficiency  is\t not
\n\t      more  than  one per cent of the  aggregate  of
\n\t      marks,  he will be awarded the required  grace
\n\t      marks  (that  can\t be  distributed  among\t any
\n\t      number of subjects) provided, the grace  marks
\n\t      awarded in practicals do not exceed the  marks
\n\t      actually\tobtained  by the  candidate  in\t the
\n\t      practical examination.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   A candidate shall not be entitled to the
\n\t      benefit  of  grace marks to  earn\t compartment
\n\t      though he shall be entitled to the grace marks
\n\t      to  pass\tthe compartment examination  to\t the
\n\t      extent  of one per cent of the  maximum  marks
\n\t      allotted to the examination.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (c)   A  candidate appearing in  a  subject(s)
\n\t      for  improvement in his previous\tperformance,
\n\t      will not be entitled to grace marks.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (d)   A  candidate  appearing in one  or\tmore
\n\t      additional subjects shall also be eligible for
\n\t      grace  marks up to 1% of the aggregate of\t the
\n\t      total marks allotted to the papers.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      5.    In\t Naresh\t Shosi\tv.   Punjab   School
\n\t      Education\t Board’\t the High  Court  considered
\n\t      Regulation  16(b)(1)  of\tthe  Punjab   School
\n\t      Education, Board Senior Secondary\t Certificate
\n\t      Examination Part-I, Regulations, 1988 wherein
\n\t      1\t   CWP\t  No.9760o   f1989,    decided\t  on<\/span>
\n\t      Sept.15,1989(P&H,DB)
\n\t      528<\/span>
\n\t      provision\t was made for award of grace  marks.
\n\t      In the said Regulations there was no provision
\n\t      similar to clause (b) of Regulation 26 of\t the
\n\t      Regulations  whereunder the benefit  of  grace
\n\t      marks  cannot  be given to  earn\tcompartment.
\n\t      The  High Court has pointed out that the\tduty
\n\t      of  holding the Senior  Secondary\t Certificate
\n\t      Examination was being performed by the  Punjab
\n\t      University   and\tthe  said  work\t  had\tbeen
\n\t      transferred  to  the Punjab  School  Education
\n\t      Board  only  recently.   After  referring\t  to
\n\t      Regulation  27(1) of the\tGeneral\t Regulations
\n\t      for  Examinations contained in Chapter III  of
\n\t      the Punjab University Calendar Volume II, 1984
\n\t      wherein provision was made for award of  grace
\n\t      marks  and  it was also  provided\t that  grace
\n\t      marks  be\t also awarded to a candidate  if  by
\n\t      awarding\tsuch  grace  marks  he\tcould\tearn
\n\t      exemption\t or  compartment  in  subject\/s\t and
\n\t      part\/s,  the High Court has observed  that  it
\n\t      was  difficult  to  believe  that\t merely\t  by
\n\t      transfer\tof work of holding  the\t examination
\n\t      from  the\t University  to\t the  Punjab  School
\n\t      Education Board, the benefit of award of grace
\n\t      marks  would  be\tdenied\tin  the\t case  of  I
\n\t      compartment’ candidates and its  applicability
\n\t      would be restricted to the candidates only  to
\n\t      enable them to pass the examination.  It\twas,
\n\t      therefore,  held that Regulation\t16(b)(1)  of
\n\t      the  Punjab  School  Education  Board   Senior
\n\t      Secondary\t  Certificate  Examination   Part-I,
\n\t      Regulations, 1988 shall apply to the cases  of
\n\t      compartment  candidates also and\tgrace  marks
\n\t      shall be awarded to a candidate if by awarding
\n\t      such   marks   he\t can   earn   exemption\t  or
\n\t      compartment  in subject\/s and part\/s.  It\t was
\n\t      observed that if the regulation was capable of
\n\t      the interpretation that grace marks could\t not
\n\t      be awarded to a candidate if by awarding\tsuch
\n\t      marks   he  can  earn  compartment  then\t the
\n\t      regulation  would be held to be arbitrary\t and
\n\t      discriminatory.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      6.    Following  the said decision a  Division
\n\t      Bench of the High Court in Anil Kumar v. Board
\n\t      of  School  Education, Haryana2  directed\t the
\n\t      Board  to award grace marks so as\t to  entitle
\n\t      the   petitioner\tin  that  case\tto  earn   a
\n\t      compartment.     The   Court   rejected\t the
\n\t      contention  urged on behalf of the Board\tthat
\n\t      the  decision  in Naresh Shosi case’  was\t not
\n\t      applicable  in view of the  express  provision
\n\t      regarding\t non-award  of grace  marks  in\t the
\n\t      Regulations of the Board.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      7.    Thereafter\tin Vishal Kumar v. State  of
\n\t      Haryana3\ta  Single Judge of the\tHigh  Court,
\n\t      relying  upon the observations made in  Naresh
\n\t      Shosi case’ held that Regulation 26(b) of\t the
\n\t      Regulations,  insofar  as it debars  a  failed
\n\t      candidate to the entitlement of the benefit of
\n\t      grace  marks in order to earn  compartment  is
\n\t      arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and  16
\n\t      of the Constitution.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      8.    After  the decision in Anil Kumar  case2
\n\t      the  Board, at its meeting held  on  September
\n\t      26, 1990, decided that 10+2 candidates who had
\n\t      appeared in March 1990 annual examination\t but
\n\t      had  failed,  be given the  benefit  of  grace
\n\t      marks  to\t earn compartment as  per  the\tsaid
\n\t      decision and the candidates whose
\n\t      2\t Civil\tMisc.\tNo. 6963 of  1990  and\tWrit<\/span>
\n\t      Petition (Civil) No. 9164 of 1990, decided  on
\n\t      Aug.  18,\t 1990  (P & H,\tDB)3  Writ  Petition
\n\t      (Civil) No. 14021 of 1990, decided on Dec.  3,
\n\t      1991 (P & H)
\n\t      529<\/span>
\n\t      results are liable to be revised be  intimated
\n\t      that   they   can\t apply\tto  be\t placed\t  in
\n\t      compartment  in the supplementary\t examination
\n\t      1990.  It was also decided that a proposal  to
\n\t      carry   out   amendment\tin   the    relevant
\n\t      Regulations be considered in the next  meeting
\n\t      of the Board.  It appears that the Board\talso
\n\t      proposed an amendment in Regulation 26 in\t the
\n\t      light  of\t the decision of the High  Court  in
\n\t      Anil Kumar case2 and the same was forwarded to
\n\t      the State Government for approval.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      9.    The\t question whether the concession  of
\n\t      grace  marks  could be given to  students\t for
\n\t      earning compartment came up for  consideration
\n\t      before  a Full Bench of the High Court in\t Raj
\n\t      Kumar  v. State Board of Technical  Education,
\n\t      Punjab4  in  the\tcontext of Rule\t 21  of\t the
\n\t      Examination  Rules  of  the  State  Board\t  of
\n\t      Technical\t Education,  Punjab,  for   Pharmacy
\n\t      course.\tThe said rule was silent  about\t the
\n\t      concession  of  grace  marks  being  given  to
\n\t      students\tfor earning compartment.   The\tFull
\n\t      Bench construed the rule as meaning that grace
\n\t      marks  shall be given only to  those  students
\n\t      who by getting the same are able to  pass\t in
\n\t      all  the subjects.  Rejecting  the  contention
\n\t      that  the\t absence of  a\tprovision  regarding
\n\t      concession   of\tgrace  marks   for   earning
\n\t      compartment  though a provision is made  about
\n\t      the  grant of grace marks for passing out\t the
\n\t      examinations, renders the rule discriminatory,
\n\t      the Full Bench has observed
\n\t      “Moreover,  the intention of the\trule-framers
\n\t      that the students of 1st year should get\tmore
\n\t      than  one\t chance\t to  pass  the\t preliminary
\n\t      examination can well be gathered from a  plain
\n\t      reading  of  the\trules  and  once  the\tmore
\n\t      beneficial   provision   has  been   made\t  by
\n\t      providing\t supplementary\texamination  for   a
\n\t      student who is unable to pass out examination,
\n\t      no  grievance  can possibly be made  that\t the
\n\t      rules  should  be\t held  discriminatory\tonly
\n\t      because  no  provision has been made  for\t the
\n\t      grant  of\t concession of grace  marks  to\t the
\n\t      students\t for   the   purpose   of    earning
\n\t      compartment.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
10.  Recently another Full Bench of the High Court in  Anita
\nDevi  v.  State of Haryana5 has considered the\tquestion  of
\nconfining  the award of grace marks only to a candidate\t who
\ncan  pass  the\texamination  but not  if  he  is  placed  in
\ncompartment in connection with the examinations for awarding
\nof  Diploma  in\t Education  at\tthe  Government\t  Elementary
\nTeachers  Training  Institute,\tBhiwani.   In  the  relevant
\nprovisions  there was an express prohibition to\t the  effect
\n“that the candidates cannot be placed in the compartment  by
\nawarding  grace marks”.\t The validity of the said  provision
\nwas  assailed  as  being  violative of\tArticle\t 14  of\t the
\nConstitution  and  reliance was placed on  the\tdecision  in
\nNaresh\tShosi  case’.\tThe said  contention  was,  however,
\nrejected and it was held that the view taken in Naresh Shosi
\ncase’  as well as in Vishal Kumar case3 is not\tcorrect\t and
\nboth  these  decisions have been overruled.  The  Court\t has
\nagreed\twith  the earlier Full Bench decision in  Raj  Kumar
\ncase4.\tIt has been observed
\n4    (1990) 2 Punj LR 179, 185
\n5  (1993) 2 Punj LR 157
\n530<\/span>
\n\t      “The  academic  standards\t laid  down  by\t the
\n\t      appropriate authorities postulate the  minimum
\n\t      marks that a candidate has to secure before he
\n\t      becomes eligible for the award of the diploma.
\n\t      The award of grace marks is a concession.\t It
\n\t      results  in  diluting academic  standards.   A
\n\t      rule  for the award of grace marks has  to  be
\n\t      construed\t strictly so as to ensure  that\t the
\n\t      minimum  standards  are  not  allowed  to\t  be
\n\t      diluted  beyond  the limit  specifically\tlaid
\n\t      down by the appropriate authority.  It is only
\n\t      in a case where the language of the statute is
\n\t      absolutely clear that the claim for the  award
\n\t      of  grace marks can be  sustained.   Normally,
\n\t      the   Court  shall  be  slow  to\textend\t the
\n\t      concession of grace marks and grant a  benefit
\n\t      where  none  is intended to be  given  by\t the
\n\t      appropriate authority.”\n<\/p>\n
11.  Before  the  said\tdecision in  Anita  Devi  case5\t the
\nprovisions of Regulation 26 came up for consideration before
\na  Full\t Bench\tof  the High  Court,  Punjab  &\t Haryana  in
\nMeenakshi Sharma v. Board of School Education, Haryana6.  In
\nthat case the petitioner could qualify only in four subjects
\nout of five subjects and was placed under compartment in the
\nsubject\t of English Core.  She availed the first chance\t but
\ncould  not  clear  the compartment.  She  appeared  for\t the
\nsecond\ttime in March 1991 and secured 29 marks out of\t100,
\nagainst\t the  pass  percentage\tof  33.\t  The  question\t for
\nconsideration  was  whether  the award of  grace  marks\t was
\nrestricted  only  to the extent of 1% of the  maximum  marks
\nallotted  to  the  subject  concerned or  1%  of  the  total
\naggregate marks of all the five subjects.  Relying upon\t the
\ndecision  of this Court in Punjab University, Chandigarh  v.
\nSunder\tSingh7 the High Court<\/a> has held that the grace  marks
\ncould  be  awarded only to the extent of 1 %  of  the  total
\nmarks  of  the\tsubject(s)  alone  in  which  the  candidate
\nreappears.   In that case the validity of Regulation 26\t had
\nalso  been challenged on the ground that it  was  arbitrary.
\nNegativing the said contention it was held :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “So  far\tas  the challenge to  the  vires  of
\n\t      Regulation  26  ibid is concerned, we  do\t not
\n\t      find any constitutional or legal infirmity  or
\n\t      any  arbitrariness  in  the  said\t regulation.
\n\t      Obviously,  the intention of  the\t legislature
\n\t      and  the object of the legislation, were\tonly
\n\t      to  promote  the\tinterest  of  education\t  by
\n\t      requiring\t the students to achieve success  in
\n\t      the  examination\ton the basis  of  their\t own
\n\t      performance and not by depending on the  grace
\n\t      of   the\t examining   bodies.\tThe   object
\n\t      underlying  the  grant of grace  marks  is  to
\n\t      remove  the real hardship to a  candidate\t who
\n\t      has  otherwise shown good performance  in\t the
\n\t      academic field but is somehow losing one\tyear
\n\t      of his scholastic career for the deficiency of
\n\t      a mark or so in one or two subjects, while  on
\n\t      the basis of his overall performance in  other
\n\t      subjects,\t  he   deserves\t  to   be   declared
\n\t      successful.    The   consideration   being   a
\n\t      laudable\t one,  Regulation  26\tis   neither
\n\t      arbitrary\t nor unfair or unjust.\tIn fact,  it
\n\t      seeks to lay emphasis on the excellence in the
\n\t      field  of\t education; hence,  deserves  to  be
\n\t      upheld.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
6    Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1802 of 1992, decided on July
\n21, 1992
\n7   1984 Supp SCC 239: (1984) 3 SCR 31
\n531<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
12.  The  Board,  in  its meeting held on  April  23,  1993,
\ntaking\tnote  of  the decision\tin  Meenakshi  Sharma  case6
\nwherein\t Regulation  26 has been held to be  valid,  decided
\nthat  withdrawal of the benefit given to the candidates\t who
\nhad  already been granted the benefit of 1% grace  marks  to
\nearn  compartment on the basis of the decision taken by\t the
\nBoard  on September 26, 1990 and December 21, 1990  pursuant
\nto  the earlier judgment in Anil Kumar case2 would  not.  be
\njustified  but the judgment of the High Court  in  Meenakshi
\nSharma case6 should be made applicable from the\t examination
\nin March 1993 and onwards, and that the result of the Senior
\nSecondary  Certificate\tExamination in March 1993  would  be
\ndeclared  giving the benefit of 1% grace marks only to\tpass
\nthe  examination.   As a result of the\tsaid  decision,\t the
\nBoard  did  not give the benefit of 1% grace  marks  to\t the
\nrespondents  so\t as  to\t enable\t them  to  be  placed  under
\ncompartment.\n<\/p>\n
13.  In\t allowing the writ petitions of the respondents\t the
\nHigh  Court has proceeded on the basis that prior  to  April
\n1993 the Regulation 26(b) provided for award of grace  marks
\nto  earn  compartment and the Board has been acting  on\t the
\nsaid Regulation since December 1990 till April 1993 and\t the
\nstudents  were\tawarded grace marks and\t were  placed  under
\ncompartment  but after April 1993 the Board has amended\t the
\nRegulations  to\t the  effect that no grace  marks  would  be
\ngranted\t  for  placing\tthe  students\tunder\tcompartment.
\nAccording  to  the  High  Court\t the  respondents  took\t the
\nexamination in March 1993 when the Regulation providing\t for
\ngrant  of grace marks to the students was in  operation\t and
\nwas being acted upon by the Board and the students acted  on
\nthe  basis of the said Regulations and took the\t examination
\nand though the Board had amended the Regulation in  question
\non  April 23, 1993 before declaration of the result yet\t the
\nright  accrued to the students could not be permitted to  be
\ntaken away by giving retrospective effect to the  Regulation
\nand  the  amended  Regulation, in view\tof  the\t Full  Bench
\ndecision, has to come into operation only with regard to the
\nstudents who took examination after the Regulation had\tbeen
\namended.   The High Court has also observed that  the  Board
\nwas  estopped by its act and conduct in denying grace  marks
\nto  the\t respondents  for  placing  them  under\t compartment
\nparticularly  when it had acted on the said  Regulation\t for
\nalmost\tthree years and granted the said concession  to\t the
\nstudents who had taken examination under the said rule.\n<\/p>\n
14.  Shri Bachawat, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
\nthe  Board, has submitted that the High Court has  proceeded
\nunder  an erroneous impression that Regulation 26  had\tbeen
\namended by the Board on April 23, 1993 after the decision in
\nMeenakshi Sharma case6.\t The learned counsel has pointed out
\nthat  on  April\t 23, 1993 the Board had taken  note  of\t the
\ndecision  in Meenakshi Sharma case6 and had decided to\tdrop
\nthe  amendment which had been proposed in the light  of\t the
\ndecision in Anil Kumar case2 and had been sent to the  State
\nGovernment  for its approval and that on April 23, 1993\t the
\nBoard had decided to enforce Regulation 26(b), as originally
\nframed,\t with effect from the Senior  Secondary\t Certificate
\nExamination  March  1993  since the Board did  not  wish  to
\nwithdraw the benefit of 1% of
\n532<\/span>
\ngrace  marks to earn compartment which had been\t granted  to
\nstudents  taking earlier examinations.\tThis  contention  is
\nfully  borne  out by the proceedings of the meeting  of\t the
\nBoard  held on April 23, 1993 which show that in  compliance
\nwith the decision of the High Court in Anil Kumar case2\t the
\nBoard  started\tgiving\t1%  grace marks\t even  to  a  failed
\ncandidate to enable him to earn compartment with effect from
\nthe  examinations held in November 1990 in  anticipation  of
\nthe  sanction  of the State Government to  the\tproposal  to
\namend Regulation 26(b).\t The said proceedings indicate\tthat
\nsanction of the State Government had not been received\ttill
\nthe  date of the meeting of the Board.\tThe  proceedings  of
\nthe  meeting  dated April 23, 1993, also  show\tthat  having
\nregard\tto  the decision in Meenakshi Sharma  case6  wherein
\nRegulation  26(b) has been upheld, the Board concluded\tthat
\n1%  grace marks are not to be given to earn compartment\t but
\nit  decided that it would not be justified to  withdraw\t the
\nbenefit\t of 1% grace marks that has already been granted  to
\nthe  candidates and that the judgment of the High  Court  in
\nMeenakshi  Sharma case6 should be made applicable  from\t the
\nexamination of March 1993 and onwards.\tThe proceedings show
\nthat  prior to April 23, 1993 the Board had  been  following
\nthe  law as laid down by the High Court in Anil Kumar  case2
\nbut  on\t April 23, 1993, in accordance with  the  subsequent
\ndecision  of  the Full Bench in Meenakshi Sharma  case6\t the
\nBoard  decided\tto enforce Regulation 26(b),  as  originally
\nframed,\t with effect from the Senior  Secondary\t Certificate
\nExamination   March,  1993.   There  was  no  amendment\t  in
\nRegulation  26(b) at any stage because the approval  of\t the
\nState  Government to the amendment proposed by the Board  in
\nthe  said  Regulation after Anil Kumar case2  had  not\tbeen
\nreceived  by the Board till April 23, 1993  and,  therefore,
\nthere  is no question of the Board having changed the  rules
\nwith  retrospective effect on April 23, 1993.  It cannot  be
\nsaid that the respondents had acquired any right to award of
\ngrace marks to earn compartment prior to the decision of the
\nBoard  dated  April  23, 1993 and, therefore,  there  is  no
\nquestion of deprivation of any right which had vested in the
\nrespondents.   Nor can the principle of estoppel be  invoked
\nto  preclude  the  Board from enforcing\t the  provisions  of
\nRegulation 26(b).\n<\/p>\n
15.  The  learned counsel for the respondents has,  however,
\nsubmitted  that in Meenakshi Sharma case6 the Court was\t not
\ndealing with the question regarding giving benefit of  grace
\nmarks to earn compartment and the question for consideration
\nbefore\tthe  Full  Bench was with regard to  the  basis\t for
\ncomputing  1% grace marks to be awarded to a  candidate\t who
\nhad  been placed under compartment and who had\tappeared  in
\nthe  supplementary  examination.  It is submitted  that\t the
\nvalidity  of Regulation 26 had been challenged in  the\tsaid
\ncase in the light of the said question and that the decision
\nin  Meenakshi  Sharma case6 negativing\tthe  said  challenge
\ncannot be construed as upholding the validity of  Regulation
\n26(b)\twhich  prohibits  award\t of  grace  marks  to\tearn
\ncompartment.   It  has been urged that\tsince  in  Meenakshi
\nSharma case6 the validity of Regulation 26(b), insofar as it
\nprohibits  giving  the\tbenefit\t of  grace  marks  to\tearn
\ncompartment has not been considered, the Board was in  error
\nin placing reliance on Meenakshi Sharma
\ncase6 to take the decision on April 23, 1993 to\t discontinue
\nthe  practice  of awarding grace marks to  earn\t compartment
\nwhich was being followed since November 1990 in view of\t the
\ndecision in Anil Kumar case2.\n<\/p>\n
16.  It is no doubt true that in Meenakshi Sharma case6\t the
\nFull Bench of the High Court was considering the question as
\nto the mode of computing the benefit of 1% grace marks to be
\ngiven  to a candidate who had been placed under\t compartment
\nand who had appeared in one subject only and the High  Court
\nwas not required to consider the question whether benefit of
\ngrace  marks  should be given to earn  compartment  and\t the
\nvalidity of Regulation 26, as being discriminatory, was also
\nassailed  in  the  said context.  But  we  find\t that  while
\nnegativing  the challenge to the validity of  Regulation  26
\nthe Full Bench has considered Regulation 26 in its  entirety
\nand  having regard to the intention of the  Legislature\t and
\nobject\tof the legislation, namely, to promote the  interest
\nof education by requiring the students to achieve success in
\nthe  examination on the basis of their own  performance\t and
\nnot  by\t depending  upon the grace marks  of  the  examining
\nbodies,\t the  High  Court has held  that  Regulation  26  is
\nneither arbitrary nor unfair or unjust.\t These\tobservations
\napply  to all the clauses of Regulation 26 including  clause\n<\/p>\n
(b).   For  like reasons a Full Bench of the High  Court  in
\nAnita  Devi case5 upheld a provision similar  to  Regulation
\n26(b)  which provided that grace marks shall not be  awarded
\nto  enable  a  candidate to  be\t placed\t under\tcompartment.
\nMoreover  the judgment in Meenakshi Sharma case6 has  to  be
\nread with the earlier judgment of the Full Bench of the High
\nCourt  in Raj Kumar case4 wherein the Court did\t not  accept
\nthe  contention that a rule which did not provide for  grant
\nof grace marks to enable a candidate to earn compartment was
\narbitrary and discriminatory.\n<\/p>\n
17.  In\t these\tcircumstances, it cannot be  said  that\t the
\nBoard  at the meeting held on April 23, 1993  committed\t any
\nerror  in proceeding on the basis that Regulation 26(b)\t has
\nbeen held to be valid by the High Court in Meenakshi  Sharma
\ncase6  and  in\tdeciding to enforce  Regulation\t 26(b)\twith
\neffect from the Senior Secondary Certificate Examination  of
\nMarch  1993  and  in  declaring\t the  result  of  the\tsaid
\nexamination in accordance with the said ‘Regulation’.\n<\/p>\n
18.  The  High Court, in the judgment under appeal,  was  in
\nerror in interfering with the decision taken by the Board at
\nits  meeting held on April 23, 1993, to\t enforce  Regulation
\n26(b),\tas  originally framed, with effect from\t the  Senior
\nSecondary Certificate Examination March, 1993 and to deny to
\nthe   respondents  the\tbenefit\t of  grace  marks  to\tearn
\ncompartment.   The  judgment  of  the  High  Court   cannot,
\ntherefore, be upheld and must be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
19.  Since  the respondents may have proceeded on the  basis
\nthat  they would be placed under compartment and they  would
\nnot be required to appear in regular examination in all\t the
\npapers in accordance with the judgment of the High Court and
\nthey  may  not have taken steps to  register  themselves  as
\nstudents for the regular examination in all the subjects, it
\nis
\n534<\/span>
\nbut appropriate that the Board should permit them to  appear
\nin  the\t regular examinations in all  the  subjects  without
\ninsisting   upon  their\t complying  with  the\trequirements
\nregarding attendance, etc.\n<\/p>\n
20.  In the result the appeals are allowed, the judgment and
\norder  of  the\tHigh  Court  dated  September  6,  1993\t and
\nSeptember 10, 1993 are set aside and writ petitions filed by
\nthe  respondents  in  the High\tCourt  are  dismissed.\t The
\nrespondents  will,  however, be permitted to take  the\tnext
\nSenior Secondary Certificate Examination to be conducted  by
\nthe  Board  in\tall the five subjects  without\ttheir  being
\nrequired to fulfil the requirements of regulations  relating
\nto attendance, etc.  No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
535<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Board Of School Education vs Arun Rathi on 9 February, 1994 Equivalent citations: 1994 AIR 2336, 1994 SCR (1) 741 Author: S Agrawal Bench: Agrawal, S.C. (J) PETITIONER: BOARD OF SCHOOL EDUCATION Vs. RESPONDENT: ARUN RATHI DATE OF JUDGMENT09\/02\/1994 BENCH: AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) BENCH: AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N.(CJ) CITATION: 1994 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-59973","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBoard Of School Education vs Arun Rathi on 9 February, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-school-education-vs-arun-rathi-on-9-february-1994\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Board Of School Education vs Arun Rathi on 9 February, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-school-education-vs-arun-rathi-on-9-february-1994\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1994-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-09T21:54:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/board-of-school-education-vs-arun-rathi-on-9-february-1994#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/board-of-school-education-vs-arun-rathi-on-9-february-1994\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Board Of School Education vs Arun Rathi on 9 February, 1994\",\"datePublished\":\"1994-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-09T21:54:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/board-of-school-education-vs-arun-rathi-on-9-february-1994\"},\"wordCount\":3741,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/board-of-school-education-vs-arun-rathi-on-9-february-1994#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/board-of-school-education-vs-arun-rathi-on-9-february-1994\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/board-of-school-education-vs-arun-rathi-on-9-february-1994\",\"name\":\"Board Of School Education vs Arun Rathi on 9 February, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1994-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-09T21:54:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/board-of-school-education-vs-arun-rathi-on-9-february-1994#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/board-of-school-education-vs-arun-rathi-on-9-february-1994\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/board-of-school-education-vs-arun-rathi-on-9-february-1994#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Board Of School Education vs Arun Rathi on 9 February, 1994\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Board Of School Education vs Arun Rathi on 9 February, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-school-education-vs-arun-rathi-on-9-february-1994","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Board Of School Education vs Arun Rathi on 9 February, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-school-education-vs-arun-rathi-on-9-february-1994","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1994-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-09T21:54:46+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-school-education-vs-arun-rathi-on-9-february-1994#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-school-education-vs-arun-rathi-on-9-february-1994"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Board Of School Education vs Arun Rathi on 9 February, 1994","datePublished":"1994-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-09T21:54:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-school-education-vs-arun-rathi-on-9-february-1994"},"wordCount":3741,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-school-education-vs-arun-rathi-on-9-february-1994#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-school-education-vs-arun-rathi-on-9-february-1994","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-school-education-vs-arun-rathi-on-9-february-1994","name":"Board Of School Education vs Arun Rathi on 9 February, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1994-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-09T21:54:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-school-education-vs-arun-rathi-on-9-february-1994#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-school-education-vs-arun-rathi-on-9-february-1994"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-school-education-vs-arun-rathi-on-9-february-1994#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Board Of School Education vs Arun Rathi on 9 February, 1994"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59973","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=59973"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59973\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=59973"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=59973"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=59973"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}