Delhi High Court
Vipin Kaul vs Central Board Of Secondary Education ... on 29 July, 2002
Equivalent citations: 99(2002)DLT835
Author: Manmohan Sarin
Bench: Manmohan Sarin
JUDGMENT Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. Petitioner has filed has present petition seeking quashing of the decision of the respondent Board, i.e. Central Board of Secondary Education, not to permit the petitioner to appear in Chemistry (Code 043) Examination of the All India Senior Secondary School Examination on 11.3.2002. Petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondents to hold a special examination to permit the petitioner to appear for the Chemistry examination or to appear in any special examination for the said subject, being held in riot affected areas.
2. Petitioner Vipin Kaul claims that on the morning of 11.3.2002, he developed acute right abdominal pain accompanied with vomiting and retching. He was immediately rushed to a local doctor, who gave emergency treatment. The petitioner claims that even though the Doctor had advised immediate admission for carrying out tests to rule out the possibility of acute appendicIT is or acute renal colic. The petitioner with a view to avoid the prospect of losing the entire academic year refused to get admitted in Hospital and instead rushed to the examination centre. Petitioner claims that he reached the examination centre at about 10.40 A.M. i.e. 10 minutes late. However, the security guard declined to allow the petitioner entry on the ground that examination had already started and the petitioner could not be allowed entry.
3. Petitioner assails the refusal to allow the petitioner to enter the examination. It is stated that as per the directions for candidates printed on the reverse of the admission card, petitioner could enter up to 10.45 A.M. Petitioner complains of discrimination as two other students who had arrived few minutes earlier to the petitioner were permitted by the guards to enter on the ground that their car tyre had got punctured. The petitioner, his parents as well as few others sought to intervene on behalf of the petitioner but to no avail. Petitioner has filed along with the petition affidavits of persons, who were present at the scene. It is claimed that principal of petitioner's own school i.e. Tagore School pleaded the case, but to no avail. An officer of the Board who was in charge of the Examination Centre declined to permit the petitioner to take the examination and finally the Principal of petitioner's school at about 11.30 A.M. informed the petitioner's father than CBSE's officials had declined the permission.
4. Counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents wherein the petitioner's claim that he reached at about 10.40 A.M. is disputed. It is claimed that the petitioner reached after 11 A.M. and the examination had commenced at 10.30 A.M. It is stated that CBSE officers had no bias or ill feelings against the petitioner and if he reached within the permissible time of 10.45 A.M. or so they would have permitted him to appear in the examination.
5. Although the petitioner had claimed that principal of the New Delhi Public School i.e. examination centre had sought to intercede with the Board officials to get permission for the petitioner to appear, the report given by the principal to the Secretary of CBSE states that the petitioner had reached around 11 A.M. and was late beyond the time rules permitted and after discussing the matter with the CBSE officials they decided to decline permission.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. N.K. Kaul, who made a fervent and impassioned plea for permitting the petitioner to take the examination, who was prevented on account of causes beyond his control, to reach the examination hall on time. In view of the conflicting versions, namely, the petitioner claims that he reached around 10.40 A.M. and the claim of the CBSE officials and the stand of the principal of the New Delhi Public School, that the petitioner reached after 11 A.M., no useful purpose would be served on pursuing this aspect of the controversy, as these disputed questions of fact cannot be determined in these proceedings. Mr. Kaul, therefore, urged that the directions be issued for holding special examination or petitioner be permitted to take the examination along with other students in the riot hit areas, where such special examinations were being held.
7. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for respondents had sought time to obtain instructions Mr. Anil Kumar, on instructions, states that no separate or special examinations are being held in riot hit areas. As regards prayer for holding of a special examination for the petitioner, this need not be considered further on account of subsequent developments. Respondents have reported that petitioner failed in the theory examination of Physics getting 13 marks while he is required to pass and qualify both theory and practicals. Under the rules, a candidate who fails in one of the five subjects of external examination can be placed in compartment and permitted to appear in the said subject provided he qualifies in all the remaining subjects of internal assessment. Petitioner, therefore, can be allowed to appear in the compartment examination of only one subject i.e. either in Physics or Chemistry. The net result would be that the petitioner can appear either in Physics or Chemistry in compartmental examination, scheduled on 29th July, 2002. These examinations for the subjects are conducted at the same time. Even though it may be a hard case, no relief can be granted to the petitioner as non appearance in Chemistry and failing in Physics is to be treated as having failed in two subjects and compartmental examination can be permitted only in one subject.
In view of the foregoing discussion, petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed for.
This case has brought to the force the hardship that can be caused by rigorous application of Rule 2.2.8.the said provision reads as folows:
"2.2.8. The doors should be opened half an hour before the time specified for the distribution of paper on the first day and fifteen minutes on the subsequent days. Candidates should be advised to be in their seats 10 minutes before the scheduled commencement of the Examination. After the question papers have been distributed, normally no candidate who is late by more than 15 minutes be admitted. In case, the Superintendent is satisfied that the delay is on account of a bona fide reason, he may admit a candidate up to half an hour of the commencement of the examination and send a detailed report about the same to the Regional Officer. Admission of any candidate to the examination hall in contravention of these instructions shall be considered invalid for that particular paper."
The maximum permissible time limit prescribed for late entry to the examination hall is 15 minutes extendable to half an hour based on the discretion of the Superintendent of Examination. For an important examination like that of the Board, a candidate would not belate of his/her volition or inadvertance. When a candidate is delayed, it would be on account of genuine health reasons, a mishap or failure of the means of transportation, or traffic bottleneck or other unavoidable circumstances. A candidate who arrives late at the examination hall himself suffers on account of the reduced time left to answer the question paper, which itself should be sufficient to ensure punctuality. The penal consequences of refusal of entry to the examination hall may result in the loss of an entire academic year. Considering the factors enumerated earlier, coupled with the inadequate public transportation system in the metro of NCT, the existing traffic and vehicular congestion and hazards of traffic, the Board may consider raising the permissible time limit suitably. It could be half an hour extendable to 45 minutes in bona fide cases, subject to discretion of the examination Superintendent. The sanctity of the examination process can be retained by not allowing any student to leave the examination hall prior to 45 minutes or one hour of the commencement of the examination.
The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.