Allahabad High Court
Ripun Kumar Singh vs Central Board Of Secondary Education ... on 18 September, 2019
Author: Ajay Bhanot
Bench: Ajay Bhanot
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29813 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ripun Kumar Singh Respondent :- Central Board Of Secondary Education And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Singh,Amrendra Nath Rai Counsel for Respondent :- Surendra Prasad Sharma Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Sri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner simultaneously appeared in the Class 12th examination conducted by the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education as well as Class 12th examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education in the year 2011. Petitioner requested the Central Board of Secondary Education to cancel his result and candidature before the Class 12th examination results were declared.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the candidature of the petitioner in the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, suffers from no infirmity despite the fact that he simultaneously appeared in Class 12th examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kuldeep Kumar Pathak Vs State of U.P. and others, reported at 2016 (3) SCC 521. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the validity of candidature of a student who had simultaneously appeared in two examinations including one conducted by the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education held thus:
"6. Before us, Mr Pradeep Kant, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has made a neat legal argument. He submits that though the impugned judgment proceeds on the basis that appearing in two examinations simultaneously for the same year is in violation of the Regulations of the Board, this reason given by the High Court is clearly unsustainable inasmuch as no such Regulation is shown by the Board which prohibited any such candidate to appear in two examinations in the same year. The learned Senior Counsel further argued that the impugned order passed by the respondents for confiscating his certificate of intermediate exam was, otherwise also, contrary to the principles of natural justice inasmuch as no show-cause notice and opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant before passing such an order, which was passed belatedly after a period of nine years from the passing of the said examination by the appellant.
7. We are of the opinion that both the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel are valid in law and have to prevail. The High Court has been influenced by the argument of the respondents that simultaneous appearance in two examinations by the appellant in the same year was ?contrary to the Regulations?. However, no such Regulation has been mentioned either by the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench. Curiously, no such Regulation has been pointed out even by the respondents. On our specific query to the learned counsel for the respondents to this effect, he expressed his inability to show any such Regulation or any other rule or provision contained in the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or Supplementary Regulations of 1976 framed under the aforesaid Act or in any other governing Regulations. Therefore, the entire foundation of the impugned judgment of the High Court is erroneous."
The judgment in Kuldeep Kumar Pathak (supra) applies squarely to the facts of the case.
There is no infirmity in the candidature of petitioner in the Intermediate Examination conducted by the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education. The Intermediate Examination certificate issued by the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education in favour of the petitioner is lawful and valid.
As far as the request of the petitioner for cancellation of the result of Class 12th Examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education is concerned, the matter is engaging attention of the Central Board of Secondary Education.
The only prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the representation of the petitioner for cancellation of his result of Class 12th examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education, may be decided within a stipulated period of time.
Sri Surendra Prasad Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent Board submits that the Board is under an obligation of law to decide the application as per law.
Matter is remitted to respondent no. 1, Central Board of Secondary Education, Allahabad (Prayagraj). The respondent no. 1, Central Board of Secondary Education, Allahabad (Prayagraj), shall decide the representation of the petitioner for cancellation of the Class 12th result within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order along with fresh copy of the representation.
The writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 18.9.2019 Pravin