Skip to content


Pramod Kumar Agrawal and anr. Vs. Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMisc. Petn. No. 482 of 1967
Judge
Reported inAIR1970MP196
ActsMadhya Pradesh Board of Secondary Education, Regulations, 1965 - Regulation 126
AppellantPramod Kumar Agrawal and anr.
RespondentBoard of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh
Appellant AdvocateV.S. Dabir, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateM.C. Nihlani and ;K.L. Learani, Advs.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
- - all regular candidates like the petitioners appearing from a school affiliated to the board, cannot, therefore, appear at the xlth class examination held by the board unless they have completed the course of studies of ixth, xth and xlth classes entitling them to appear at the said examination. it would lead to rather strange results if in educational matters like this, all the boards of secondary education in the country did not function on the basis of parity. unless this was done, the field of education would be contaminated by all kinds of unhealthy practices like the one committed by the petitioners......of the s. s. v. intermediate college, hapur in meerut district, and had appeared at the high school examination, 1965, held by the board of secondary education, uttar pradesh, the examination of the petitioners was cancelled by the uttar pradesh board for their having used unfair means and they were further debarred from appearing at the 1966 examination. by suppressing these facts, the petitioners came to madhya pradesh and secured admission to the xth class in the t. t. tain higher secondary school, ganj basoda in district vidisha.3. the then principal of that school, one shri k. p. agarwal, also happened to hail from hapur, and appears to have been a party to the fraudulent suppression of facts. it is rather pertinent to observe that he was shown as the local guardian of the.....
Judgment:

A.P. Sen, J.

1. By this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners, Pramod Kumar and Vinod Kumar Agrawal, apply for a writ of mandamus commanding the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, to declare their results at the Higher Secondary Examination, 1967, at which they appeared, and also apply for quashing the Order No. 5945/ Exam. Bhopal/67 of the Secretary of the Board, cancelling their admission to the examination,

2. It appears that the petitioners were students of the S. S. V. Intermediate College, Hapur in Meerut District, and had appeared at the High School Examination, 1965, held by the Board of Secondary Education, Uttar Pradesh, The examination of the petitioners was cancelled by the Uttar Pradesh Board for their having used unfair means and they were further debarred from appearing at the 1966 Examination. By suppressing these facts, the petitioners came to Madhya Pradesh and secured admission to the Xth Class in the T. T. Tain Higher Secondary School, Ganj Basoda in District Vidisha.

3. The then Principal of that school, one Shri K. P. Agarwal, also happened to hail from Hapur, and appears to have been a party to the fraudulent suppression of facts. It is rather pertinent to observe that he was shown as the local guardian of the petitioners in their admission form and their address was to the 'care of him'. Whatever that be, that gentleman as the Principal of the School and head of the Institution, presented the petitioners as candidates for admission to the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, for its Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination 1967, by forwarding their application forms along with those of other students. In the usual course, the Madhya Pradesh Board issued Admission Cards to the petitioners, and they, accordingly appeared at the 1967. Examination. Thereafter, information regarding their improper admission to the School leaked out, and Shri Agrawal, the then Principal, presumably to safeguard his own position, addressed a letter No.l777/67/Bpl, dated 10th May 1967 to the Board, stating that 'there 'was an irregularity in the Transfer Certificates', produced by the petitioners, which they had submitted at the time of their admission to the School. He further requested the Board that the results of the petitioners be, accordingly, withheld pending his enquiry from the former School at Hapur from which they came, The original Transfer Certificates are now admittedly not on record.

4. In the meanwhile, these facts having brought to light the management discharged Shri Agrawal from service by giving him 3 months' notice in lieu of pay. His successor made enquiries from the Uttar Pradesh Board, and eventually informed the Board, by his letter No. 1833/Conf/67, dated 1st July 1967, that the petitioners were ineligible from seeking admission to the School in the Xth Class in the 1966 academic session, and had secured their admission to the Institution, by practising fraud. Along with his letter, he forwarded the copies of Transfer Certificates in original which he had secured from the principal, S. S. V. Intermediate College, Hapur, containing the following entry:

'The Examination of 1965 cancelled and debarred from 1966 vide Board's Letter No. 5/774 dated 22-7-65',

5. Before dealing with the question raised in the petition, it would be convenient to set out a relevant extract from the Board of Secondary Education, Uttar Pradesh Letter No. 5/774 dated 22nd July 1965, which has been placed before us. It is to the following effect:

^^ek/;fed f'k{kk ifj'kn]

mkj izns'k] bykgkckn

lsok esa]

iz/kkukpk;Z]

,l- ,l- ch- b.Vj dkyst] gkiqMA

esjBA

i=kad xksO A5A774 bykgkckn fnukad 22uoEcj 65

fo'k; %& lu 1965 dks gkbZLdwyijh{kk esa ,l- ,l- oh- gk;j lsdsUMjh Ldwy gkiqM esjB esa lfEefyr gksusokys dfri;ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa }kjk xf.kr izFke rFkk vaxzsth f}rh; iz'u i= esa vuqfpr lk/kuiz;ksx ds laca/k esa ifj'kn ds dsysUMj ds v/;k; 6 fofu;e 2 ,y dsvUrxZr ijh{kk lfefr dk fu.kZ;A

egksn;]

vkidk /;ku mi;qfDr fo'k; esa lacaf/kr bldk;kZy; ds i=kad xksiO 5A599 fnukad 1&8&65 dh vksjvkdf'kZr djrs gq;s fuosnu gS fd ijh{kk lfefr us dsUnz ij tkap fu;qDr milfefr dh vk[;k rFkk lacaf/kr O;fDr;ksa dh vk[;k] oDrO; vkSj Li'Vhdj.k ijiw.kZ :i ls fopkj dj fuEuor fu.kZ; fd;k gSA ;g fu.kZ; v/;{k] ek/;fed f'k{kkifj'kn }kjk Lohr dj fy;k x;k gSA

2- fuEufyf[kr ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa dh 1965 djgkbZLdwy ijh{kk j dh tk; rFkk mUgsa ifj'kn dh 1966 dh ijh{kkvksaesa lfEefyr gksus dh vuqefr u nh tk; %&

38013] 38172

Hkonh;

gO vLi'V

rs lfpoA**

(These roll numbers relate to the petitioners).

6. Before us, Shri V. S. Dabir, learned counsel for the petitioners, assails the validity of the withholding of the results of the examination by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, mainly on three grounds. It is urged that cancellation of their results by the Board of Secondary Education, Uttar Pradesh of the 1965 Examination and its debarring them for the 1986 academic session would not attach any disability to their securing admission outside the State of Uttar Pradesh, in educational institutions which do not function under the aegis of the Uttar Pradesh Board, and, therefore, the petitioners were not ineligible from securing admission in T, T. Jain Higher Secondary School, Ganj Basoda, It is, then urged that the disability, if any, was to their appearing in the 1966 Examination and not to their seeking admission in the Xth class in that year. The authorities, therefore, wrongly assumed that the petitioners had obtained admission to the school by suppression of facts. In other words, the contention is that there was no impediment to their appearance in Higher Secondary Examination, 1967, held by the Madhya Pradesh Board. Lastly, it is urged that the action taken by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Fradesh, cannot be supported by the terms of Regulation 126 of the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh Regulations, 1965. We are not impressed with any of these contentions.

7. Taking up the last point first, as rightly urged by Shri M. C. Nihlani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, we are of the view that Regulation 126 of the Board of Secondary Education Madhya Pradesh Regulations, 1965, is wide enough to justify the action of this nature. It reads, as under:

'126. In any case where it is detected that the candidates admission to the Examination has been affected by error, malpractice, fraud or improper conduct, or where the head of the institution presenting the candidate for the examination - cancels the admission or withdraws any time before the examination the Conduct and Character Certificate given in respect of the candidate the Secretary shall have the power to cancel the candidate's admission to the examination notwithstanding the inclusion of the name of the candidate in the list of the admitted candidates for the examination, or the candidate's actual admission to the examination in one or more subjects and also to debar the candidate from appearing for such period of the examination as the Result's Committee may decide.

The Secretary may admit a candidate to the examination provisionally where any enquiries in respect of his eligibility for admission to the examination are in progress or contemplated and in the light of the final decision regarding his eligibility, to deal further with his case as per provisions of these Regulations.'

It is needless to say that if the petitioners were ineligible for admission to the Xth class in any of the Schools affiliated to the Madhya Pradesh Board in the year 1966, by reason of the rustication order made by the Uttar Pradesh Board for that academic session, then it follows that if they had secured admission in the T. T. Jain Higher Secondary School, Ganj Basoda, by suppression of these facts, their admission to that school was itself invalid. The petitioners had not validly filled any term in the Xth class of that year and, therefore they had no right to appear at the 1967 Examination. The fact that they had been rusticated by the Uttar Pradesh Board had been withheld from the T. T. Jain Higher Secondary School at the time of admission to that Institution and from the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, at the time of submission of their admission forms and, therefore, their admission to the examination itself had been effected by 'fraud' or 'improper conduct', within the meaning of Regulation 126 and the Board was, therefore, entitled to cancel their admission to the examination notwithstanding the inclusion of their names in the list of admitted candidates for the examination or their actual admission to the examination

8. Equally futile is the contention that no disability attached to the petitioners from securing admission to the Xth class in the year 1966. Indeed, the argument proceeds on a misunderstanding of the nature of the syllabus for the Higher Secondary Examination. The syllabus prescribed for the Higher Secondary Examination is a 'integrated course', and the students appearing at that examination have to complete the prescribed course of studies for three years, i.e. the IXth, Xth and Xlth classes. Question papers in the final examination for the Xlth class are set on the course of studies prescribed for all the three classes, except in languages in which the question papers are based on the course of studies for Xth and Xlth classes. All regular candidates like the petitioners appearing from a school affiliated to the Board, cannot, therefore, appear at the Xlth class examination held by the Board unless they have completed the course of studies of IXth, Xth and Xlth classes entitling them to appear at the said examination. Their attendance in the IXth, Xth and Xlth classes is taken into consideration and they have to put in the minimum attendance of 75 per cent of the lectures delivered in all the three classes, i.e., the IXth, Xth and Xlth. The order of the Uttar Pradesh Board debarring the petitioners from admission to the 1966 academic session, debarred them not only from appearing at the 1966 Examination but also made them ineligible from securing admission to the Xth class in that year, for the reason that the disqualification attached to all stages of the integrated course prescribed in the syllabus.

9. Lastly, the contention that the disability attached by the order of the Uttar Pradesh Board did not extend to educational institutions not affiliated to that Board is wholly devoid of substance. It would lead to rather strange results if in educational matters like this, all the Boards of Secondary Education in the Country did not function on the basis of parity. There is no question of the order, being given an extraterritorial operation. The action taken by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, proceeds on the basis of reciprocity that these Boards of Secondary Education extend to each other. Unless this was done, the field of education would be contaminated by all kinds of unhealthy practices like the one committed by the petitioners. If a candidate is disqualified from appearing by the Board of Secondary Education of a particular State for a particular academic session, it stands to reason that its order would be given effect to by all the Boards of Secondary Education throughout the country.

10. The result is that the petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 100, if certified.


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