Skip to content


Narsingh NaraIn Tewari Vs. the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSpecial Appeal No. 134 of 1959
Judge
Reported inAIR1960All653
ActsUttar Pradesh Educational Code
AppellantNarsingh NaraIn Tewari
RespondentThe Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad
Appellant AdvocateV.K.S. Chaudhary, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateStanding Counsel
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
.....the viii standard in that school. the fact that he had read upto the viii standard in the junior high school in the district of banda and had failed in the 1955 examination was suppressed by the father in the application for the appellant's admission. subsequently, the respondent came to know of the fact of concealment of the appellant's education upto viii standard in the junior high school in the district of banda and his failure at the examination for the viii standard in 1955 in that institution. it is not disputed before us that the appellant had failed in the examination for the vi0 standard in 1955 in the junior high school in the district of banda. it is also not disputed that the fact that he had failed in that examination was not mentioned by his father in the application for..........from the tindwari primary school in the district of banda in 1951 and thereafter joined the junior high school in the same district. he failed in the 1955 examination of the viii standard in that school. thereafter, his father took him for admission to ix class in the rehmania intermediate college, maudaha, district hamirpur. the application for the appellant's admission, as required by rules, was made by the father. in the relevant column of that application against the entry 'the last institution where he had studied', it was shown that he had studied in the v standard in the tindwari primary school.the fact that he had read upto the viii standard in the junior high school in the district of banda and had failed in the 1955 examination was suppressed by the father in the application.....
Judgment:

Dwivedi, J.

1. This is an appeal against the judgment of alearned single Judge of this Court dismissing theappellant's writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

2. The facts culminating in this appeal are these: The appellant passed the examination for the V standard from the Tindwari Primary School in the district of Banda in 1951 and thereafter joined the Junior High School in the same district. He failed in the 1955 examination of the VIII standard in that school. Thereafter, his father took him for admission to IX class in the Rehmania Intermediate College, Maudaha, district Hamirpur. The application for the appellant's admission, as required by Rules, was made by the father. In the relevant column of that application against the entry 'the last institution where he had studied', it was shown that he had studied in the V standard in the Tindwari Primary School.

The fact that he had read upto the VIII standard in the Junior High School in the district of Banda and had failed in the 1955 examination was suppressed by the father in the application for the appellant's admission. The appellant was admitted to IX class in the Rehmania Intermediate College on the strength of the statement made by his father in the application for his admission. He passed the examination for the IX class and then was sent up by that College for the High School Examination of 1957. He succeeded in the said High School Examination and a certificate was issued to him.

Subsequently, the respondent came to know of the fact of concealment of the appellant's education upto VIII standard in the Junior High School in the district of Banda and his failure at the examination for the VIII standard in 1955 in that institution. Thereupon the respondent issued a charge-sheet to the appellant detailing all the facts and asking him to show cause why his certificate for the High School Examination of 1957 should not be cancelled because he had secured undue admission to the High School Examination by committing a breach of the relevant rules and regulations. The explanation submitted by the appellant did not satisfy the respondent and by its order dated 11-8-1958, it informed the appellant that his certificate for the High School Examination for 1957 has been cancelled on account of the fact that he had secured undue admission to that examination.

3. Aggrieved by that order, the appellant preferred a writ petition to this Court which, as already stated, was dismissed by a learned single Judge.

4. Two matters must be made clear at the outset. It is not disputed before us that the appellant had failed in the examination for the VI0 standard in 1955 in the Junior High School in the district of Banda. It is also not disputed that the fact that he had failed in that examination was not mentioned by his father in the application for the appellant's admission to IX class in the Rahmania Intermediate College. In paragraph 7 of the affidavit accompanying the writ petition, which js sworn by Prag Narain, the grandfather of the appellant, it is stated that the appellant, petitioner was ignorant of the fact that his father had mentioned! In the application for his admission to IX class that he had last studied upto V standard in the Tindwari School and had suppressed the fact that the appellant had last studied in a Junior High School in the district of Banda.

The allegation about the appellant's ignorance of tile facts is sworn on the personal knowledge of the deponent. It is not stated in the affidavit that the deponent was also present at the time ot the admission of the appellant to the IX class in the Rahmania Intermediate College, and we find it difficult to believe that the grandfather personally knew that the appellant was ignorant of the suppression of the fact of his last education of Banda in the year 1955. The father who had filled in the application for the appellant's admission has not come forward to swear an affidavit and allege that the latter was ignorant of the facts stated in the application for his admission, nor has the appellant filed an affidavit that he was ignorant of those facts. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to believe that the appellant was really ignorant of what his father had suppressed in the application for his admission to IX class in the Rahmania Intermediate College.

5. The High School Examination conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate consists of a regular course of two years, namely, IX and X classes. In this case, the improper admission of the appellant was sought for the tX class of the High School Examination. We are, therefore, not concerned here with a case where improper admission had been obtained to a class which is not directly connected with the High School Examination.

6. The order of the respondent dated 11-8-1958 cancelling the appellant's certificate for High School Examination of 1957 is based upon Clause (1) of Ch. VI of the Regulations enacted by the respondent. Clause (1) of the said Chapter in so far as it is pertinent, reads thus:

'To consider cases where examinees have concealed any fact or made a false statement in their application forms or a breach of rules and regulations to secure undue admission to an examination..... and to award penalty which may be one or more of the following: (1) Withdrawal of certificate of having passed the examination'.

7. As already stated, the appellant's certificate has been cancelled by the respondent in the purported exercise of its power under that part of Clause (1) which seeks to penalise an examinee for having secured undue admission to an examination by committing a breach of the rules and regulations. The question, therefore, is whether the appellant was guilty of securing an undue admission to the High School Examination of 1957 by committing a breach of the relevant rules and regulations.

8. It is not in dispute that the appellant, having failed in the 1955 examination for the VIII standard in the Junior High School, Banda district, was not entitled under rules to get admission to the IX class in the succeeding academic year i.e., 1955-56. The appellant's father, in order to secure the appellant's admission to the IX class in the academic year 1955-56, made a false statement in the application for his admission to the said class that he had last studied in the Tindwari Primary School upto V standard and wilfully suppressed the fact of the appellant's education in VIII standard in the Junior High School in the district of Banda in 1955.

The Principal of the Rahmania Intermediate College was kept ignorant of the real facts by the appellant's father as well as by the appellant. On the basis of the statement made by the appellant's father in the application for his admission to IX class, the Principal of the College sent a certificate to the respondent under Ch. XII, Rule 4 (2) certifying that the appellant's admission to the Rahmania Intermediate College was in accordance with the Rules of the Educational Code and the regulations of the Board. It may be noted here that such a certificate is one of the pre-requisites for admitting an examinee to the High School Examination.

The position, therefore, is that the fraud committed by the appellant's father, and wilfully connived at by the appellant, not only secured ah improper admission of the appellant to the IX class, which is an intimate part of the High School Examination, but was also a positive instrument in procuring the certificate of the Principal to the effect that the appellant's admission to the IX class of the Rahmania Intermediate College was not made in breach of the relevant rules and regulations. The improper admission of the appellant to the IX class, cannot, in the circumstances mentioned above, be said to be a remote link in the chain of causation but a proximate and efficient cause in bringing about the appellant's undue admission to the High School Examination.

We are, therefore, of opinion that the circumstances of this case squarely bring the appellant's case within the grip of Clause (1) of Ch. VI of the Regulations enacted by the respondent. The order of tile respondent dated 11-8-1958 cancelling the appellant's certificate for the High School Examination of 1957 was therefore within its competence.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon paragraph 90, Clause (s) of the U. P. Educational Code which prescribes a penalty for securing improper admission of a student to any class upto High School Examination on wilful misrepresentation of facts. Learned counsel said that the appellant could be visited with that penalty only and he could not be punished under Clause (1) of Ch. VI of the Regulations enacted by the respondent. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel.

10. A person may be held to have committed two distinct offences on the same set of facts. In this case, on the facts mentioned above, the appellant was guilty of having secured an improper admission to IX class and he could, therefore, have been punished under paragraph 90, Clause (s) of the U. P. Educational Code. We have already held that by his improper admission to IX class, the appellant also succeeded in securing undue admission to the High School Examination of 1957 and, therefore, he could also be punished under Clause (1) of Ch. VI of the Regulations for the separate and distinct misconduct of securing undue admission to the High School Examination of 1957 by committing a breach of the relevant rules and regulations. Learned counsel for the appellant referred us to three unreported decisions of this Court in support of his case, namely-

(1) Mahadeo Prasad v. The Secy., Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P., Allahabad, Civil Misc; Writ No. 138 of 1957 decided by Hon'ble Oak, J. on 23-1-1959;

(2) Shiva Ram Sharma v. Secy., Board of High School and Intermediate Examination, U. P. Allahabad, Civil Misc. Writ No. 748 of 1954, decided by Hon'ble Chaturvedi, J. on 5-4-1955;

(3) Radhey Shyam Pande v. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P., Allahabad, Civil Misc. Writ Nos. 946 and 947 of 1954, decided by Hon'ble Chaturvedi, J., on 18-1-1955.

11. We have looked into judgments of those three cases, but we have been unable to lay our hands on anything therein which may support the case of the appellant before us. Those cases are not relevant to the points in issue in this case.

12. There is no substance in the appeal and itis, accordingly, dismissed. In the circumstances ofthis case, however, the parties will bear their owncosts.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //