Bombay High Court
Shaikh Mohmed Sameer Ahmed Khaled Ahmed ... vs Maharashtra State Board Of Secondary ... on 6 March, 2017
Author: T.V.Nalawade
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
1 50-WP-9958-16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.9958 OF 2016
Shaikh Mohmed Sameer Ahmed
Khaled Ahmed,
Age : 17 years (minor),
Occ. Education,
Through his father Shaikh
Khaled Ahmed, Age : 45 years,
Occ. Labourer,
r/o. Shukrawar Peth,
Basmath, Tq. asmath,
Dist. Hingoli ..Petitioner
Vs.
1. Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary and Higher Secondary
Education, Aurangabad Division,
Aurangabad, through its
Divisional Secretary
2. The Head Master,
Saniya Urdu High School,
Shukrawar Peth, Basmat,
Tq. Basmat, Dist. Hingoli ..Respondent
--
Mr.P.G.Rodge, Advocate for petitioner
Ms.Surekha Mahajan, Advocate for respondent no.1
Mr.S.S.Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent no.2
--
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : MARCH 06, 2017
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:03:10 :::
2 50-WP-9958-16.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per T.V.Nalawade, J.):
Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsels for the parties.
2. This petition is filed for giving directions to the respondents to correct the result of the petitioner for 10th standard examination which was held in March, 2016. A prayer is also made to set aside the communication dated 03.08.2016 sent by respondent no.1 - Board.
3. It appears that the petitioner had appeared for 10th standard examination in March, 2015. In that attempt, he failed in three subjects i.e. Marathi, Mathematics and Science and Technology by obtaining 26 marks, 22 marks and 26 marks, respectively. He appeared in another examination held in July, 2015 and was declared passed in Marathi subject by securing 40 marks. However, he again failed in Mathematics and ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:03:10 ::: 3 50-WP-9958-16.odt Science and Technology subjects. The petitioner again appeared for the examination with said subjects in March, 2016 and declared failed in Marathi.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the Rules, since the petitioner had secured 40 marks in Marathi subject in the examination held in July-2015, he should have been exempted for that subject. He submits that in the mark-sheet of March-2016 examination, the petitioner was shown exempted for the other subjects i.e. Urdu, English and Social Science, however, was shown failed in the Marathi subject. The said mark-sheet further shows that the petitioner secured 29 marks in Mathematics and 50 marks in Science and Technology subjects. He got benefit of the rule of clubbing the marks for Mathematics subject. It appears that in the mark- sheet of March-2016 examination, though the petitioner secured 29 marks in Mathematics, he was ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:03:10 ::: 4 50-WP-9958-16.odt declared passed in Mathematics, however, for Marathi subject the marks of the petitioner were shown as 20 and he was again declared as failed in that subject. Due to this circumstance, a representation was made to the respondent - Board.
5. It appears that during inquiry, it transpired that the School had committed a mistake. The School had conducted oral examination of the petitioner in March-2016 for Marathi subject, in which the petitioner was given 20 marks and those marks were shown in the mark- sheet. The respondent - Board has given reason that due to Rule 54, the previous exemption given for Marathi subject cannot be considered as the petitioner was shown as a candidate appeared for March-2016 examination.
6. The submissions made by both sides show that the respondent - Board has a scheme of improvement of performance and a candidate, if ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:03:10 ::: 5 50-WP-9958-16.odt secures 35 or more marks and wants to improve his performance, he can again appear for the same subject. For that, a candidate is required to fill-up a form. Such is not the case of the petitioner. The petitioner was not seeking the benefit of the scheme of improvement of performance and as per the other Rules, the petitioner was already exempted from appearing in Marathi subject. If the School has conducted an oral test by informing the Board that oral test of the petitioner was conducted and he has secured 20 marks, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer due the said mistake.
7. We are, therefore, of the view that the above mistake needs to be corrected and the respondent - Board needs to presume that the petitioner has secured 40 marks in Marathi subject in July-2015 examination and therefore, in March- 2016 examination, he is exempted from said subject.
After carrying out this exercise, the Board ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:03:10 ::: 6 50-WP-9958-16.odt shall declare the result of the petitioner accordingly and issue a corrected mark-sheet.
8. Rule is made absolute accordingly. The Writ Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [T.V. NALAWADE, J.] kbp ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:03:10 :::