Orissa High Court
Suchitra Suchismita Ojha vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 9 July, 2024
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.9901 of 2024
Suchitra Suchismita Ojha .... Petitioner
Mr. D.N. Rath, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha & others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. B.P. Tripathy, AGA
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
09.07.2024 Order No.
03. 1. This matter is taken up through virtual mode.
2. Heard Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Tripathy, learned AGA for the State.
3. None appears for opposite party No.7 despite valid service.
4. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner through father guardian for a direction to the opposite parties and particularly, opposite party No.7 to take her in admission in to Class-VI pursuant to Annexure-5 and on the basis of the Select List published vide Annexure-4 and on such other grounds stated therein.
5. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that later to the receipt of Annexue-2 and issuance of Admit Card and publication of the Select List as at Annexure-4, wherein, the name of the petitioner finds place at Sl. No.10 and in view of Admission Notice dated 30th March, 2024 i.e. Annexure-5, her T.C. was obtained in the month of April, 2024 but thereafter, admission was denied to her by opposite party No.7 on the ground that she is Page 1 of 5 overage, a decision, which is unjust and arbitrary and thus, liable to be interfered with in exercise of the Court's writ jurisdiction.
6. On the contrary, Mr. Tripathy, learned AGA for the State referring to the counter affidavit of opposite party No.6 submits that admission to Class-VI of the petitioner was primarily denied on the ground of age, as she was above twelve years. It is further submitted that minimum age for a candidate seeking admission in to Class-VI should be ten or more than ten years and twelve or less than twelve years as on 31st March, 2024, hence, therefore, the petitioner being overage was rightly denied admission in the school.
7. Perused the counter affidavit of opposite No.6.
8. In course of hearing, it is revealed that the wrong date of birth was mentioned in Annexure-3 though the real date of birth to be 21st January,2012 instead of 9th February, 2013. Since Annexure-3 was issued followed by the Select List and Admission Notice as per Annexures-4 and 5 respectively, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's guardian is not at fault and he sincerely responded and obtained T.C. i.e. Annexure-6 of his daughter but unfortunately, such admission in to Class-VI was refused on such ground of being overage.
9. Gone through the counter affidavit and the grounds upon which, such admission has been declined by opposite party No.7. The acknowledgement receipt is at Annexure-2, wherein, correct date of birth is mentioned as 21st January, 2012 and thereafter, the selection process was continued and finally, the Select List was published, in which, the name of the petitioner was mentioned at Sl.No.10. Not only that, the Admission Notice i.e. Annexure-5 was issued, in response to which, the T.C. of the petitioner was obtained from her school, namely, S.D. Girl's High School, Dhenkanal. Under Page 2 of 5 such circumstances, whether, the petitioner's guardian can be said to have wronged, as the plea is that as a father guardian, he responded to the Admission Notice i.e. Ammexire-5 in all earnestness, whereafter, T.C. i.e. Annexue-6 was collected for the admission, hence, it could not have been denied by opposite party No.7.
10. The contention is that for the latches of opposite party No.7 and opposite party No.3 in particular, responsible for the selection in the issuance of Annexure-4 and continuation of such process with the participation of petitioner, no wrong can be attributed to the petitioner's father guardian.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sanatan Gauda Vrs. Berhampur University and others 1990 SC 1075 AIR. In the decision (supra), it is held that once the student was allowed to take admission and appeared Pre- Law and Inter-Law examinations, declaration of result cannot be refused or be prevented from attending the Final year examination as the University is estopped from doing so by interpreting the Regulations and Resolution of the Bar Council of India, which was found to be erroneous. It is further held therein that for such lapse and situation, the student cannot be punished for the negligence of the Principal or the University authorities.
12. In fact, in the case at hand, lapses are on the part of opposite party Nos.3 and 7 and such other persons involved in the selection process, which led to the issuance of Annexure-3, whereafter, the Select List was prepared and published vide Annexure-4 followed by Admission Notice (Annexure-5), in response whereof, the petitioner's father obtained the T.C. It is claimed that a Notice vide Annexure-D/6 was issued for correction of data in the result sheet, hence, it was for the petitioner's father to Page 3 of 5 respond, which was however not done, hence, on scrutiny, the age of the petitioner was noticed, whereafter, admission to her was denied and it is rightly so. But the Court finds the said notice not to be specifically issued to the petitioner's guardian father. It is a general notice to all the selected candidates. Had it been so, such correction would not have escaped the attention of the petitioner's father. With such a notice, all the candidates were informed to correct the data as found in Annexure-4. It could be possible for anyone to escape such notice issued by opposite party No.7, who should have made an attempt to inform the guardians of all the selected candidates separately to carry out the correction of data wherever necessary or the school or such other authorities was to carry out such exercised themselves, which was in any case their duty and responsibility to do. Of course, such a Notice like Annexure-D/6 cannot be held as unusual in an admission process and hence, it may not also be just to allege any serious breach in the conduct of opposite party No.7 and other authorities whosoever involved therein but the situation of the present kind could have been easily avoided with individual intimation to the guardians of the selected candidates or undertaking the exercise by the school or such authorities sincerely and meticulously. As it is made to understand, innocently and under a genuine impression that the selection has taken place in due course, with Notice under Annexure-5 issued, the petitioner's TC was collected from her school. As a consequence, whereof, it may also lead to a situation, where the petitioner could be left in lurch with uncertainty as to where to go after having lost a bright chance to get admission into a school of her choice.
13. The Court is alive to the fact that admission of the petitioner in the school of opposite party No.7 cannot be claimed as a matter of right as the selection is always provisional but under the Page 4 of 5 present peculiar circumstances, it deserves a treatment befitting the peculiar situation keeping in view the future of the petitioner especially later to her T.C. to have been collected. The decision in Sanatan Gouda (supra) is a case, where the plight of the petitioner therein was on better footing, but this Court, having given an anxious consideration to the case at hand and taking cognizance of the fact that definite lapses have taken place from the side of opposite party No.7 and others while being part of the exercise, reaches at a conclusion that the petitioner should not be made to suffer, rather, allowed admission in to Class-VI in the school as a special case, if the admission is not over by now. In other words, it is held that in the fitness of things, the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the Court is required to be exercised to do justice to the case.
14. Accordingly, it is ordered.
15. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with the direction, as aforesaid.
16. Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Balaram Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BALARAM BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 11-Jul-2024 14:17:59 Page 5 of 5