Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. 78 persons are petitioners in C.W.P. 11362 and 442 in the other writ petition. All these petitioners completed age of 14 years on or before October 31, 1991 and thus claim to be eligible to appear in matriculation examination as private candidates as per Regulation No. 6 as contained In reply to Calendar of 1988 published by Punjab School Education Board, respondent No. 2. The aforesaid Regulation No. 6 was applicable to matriculation examination conducted in the years 1989-90 and 1990-91. Regulation No. 6 was amended prescribing eligibility for private candidates for matriculation examination of 1991-92, copy of which is Annexure P. 1 which reads as under :-

(iv) Are on the Punjab Open School Register."

5. The challenge in the writ petitions is to the amendment made in Regulation No. 6 as above as according to the petitioners they would be deprived of their right to appear as private candidate in the matriculation examination to be conducted in the year 1991-92 although they had completed 14 years of age as on October 31, 1991. The petitioners have not passed middle standard examination or any there equivalent examination considered as such by the Board. The amendment with respect to eligibility condition of passing of middle standard examination for appearing in the matriculation examination 1991-92 session has been made without authority of law. Such a condition is unconstitutional, arbitrary, discriminatory and against the principles of natural justice. Permission of the State Government was obtained before issuing of the amendment of the Regulation Annexure P.1. The change in the eligibility condition is impossible of fulfilment by the petitioners at this stage. In the written statement filed on behalf of the Board the stand has been taken that Regulation could be made under the provision of Section 17 and 24 of the Punjab School Education Board Act, 1969 and has been rightly framed. Reasons for amendment of the Regulation have also been given in the written statement that to raise the standard of education it was considered necessary. The complete data of the student passing as regular students and as private candidates for the year 1985 to 1990 was given in the written statement indicating that the pass percentage of the private candidates was much on the lower side. It was further emphasised that there was tenancy to use unfair means much more amongst the private candidates as compared to the regular candidates. The petitioners were not completely debarred from taking matriculation examination to be held in 1991-92 as even without passing middle standard examination and having completed 14 years of age as on October 31, 1991 they could still appear in the matriculation examination by joining Open School as contemplated under clause (iv) of Annexure P. 1 reproduced above. The Board will make arrangement for imparting necessary instructions to such of the candidates joining Open School to enable them to answer questions in regular subjects in Punjabi medium. Additional affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioners inter alia alleging that medium of instructions of the petitioners was either English or Hindi and it will not be possible for such students to pass matriculation examination in any other medium and the Regulation aforesaid debarring them from appearing in the matric examination would be unreasonable.

15. The ratio of the decision in Maharashtra State Board's case is fully applicable to the case in hand. By virtue of the provisions of Sections 17 and 24 of the Act, Regulations were framed by the Board for laying down conditions and restrictions for admission of candidates to the examination. The candidates who are covered by such Regulations could be admitted to the examination to be conducted by the Board. Regulation No; 6 as amended Annexure P. 1 provides the relevant date fixed (herein for eligibility of the candidate for appearing in the examination to be held in 1992 for admission of private candidates. In case the old rule had not been amended, the petitioners could have been admitted to the examination as private candidates on completion of 14 years of age as on October 31, 1991. The Board took a policy decision for the reasons already enumerated above as contained in the written statement that in order to raise the standard of education it was considered proper that all the students must pass middle standard examination and thereafter to pass matriculation examination after expiry of a period of two years. The regular school students are required to wait for two years to appear in the matric examination after passing their middle. standard examination , and if such a condition is also made applicable to the private candidates they are brought at par with the regular school students. Thus it cannot be said that the policy framed is unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory or unfair. In the case of private candidates this condition is applicable to all who are to pass middle standard examination in any of the mediums of education such as Punjabi, English or Hindi. All such candidates have to wait for two years after passing middle standard examination to appear in the matric examination as private candidates. What has been argued on behalf of the petitioners is that they have not passed middle standard examination and if they now pass middle standard examination they have to wait for two more years to appear in the matriculation examination, under Regulation 6 as amended. According to them this has unnecessarily enlarged the educational career of the students which would not be in the interest of the students as a whole and it is in this sense that the amended Regulation is being described as oppressive and harsh. Apart from the fact that reasonableness of the Regulation cannot be gone into by the Court as held by the Supreme Court in Maharashtra Beard's case, it is not found that the result is to follow as has been suggested by the counsel for the petitioners. Persons who have not passed middle standard examination can also appear in the matriculation examination as private candidates if they are registered in the Punjab Open School. At this stage it may further be stated that all students whatever medium they have taken in the course of their educational career i. e. Punjabi, English or Hindi can be registered in the Punjab Open Schools to take instructions in Punjabi medium to appear in the matriculation examination as private candidate. This shows that the Board was conscious of the fact that ordinarily candidates who had already completed 14 years of age or were to complete the same on October 31, 1991 were required to wait for two years on passing middle standard examination to make them eligible for appearing in the matriculation examination and under the amended rule they could not appear in the matriculation examination to be held in 1992. It was to accommodate this class of candidates that provision was made in clause (iv) of Annexure P. 1 to give them an opportunity of appearing in the matriculation examination to be held in 1992 if they chose to be registered in Open School. The scheme of Open School has also been furnished giving all the necessary particulars. It is not considered necessary to refer to the same in his judgment as the only ground stressed on behalf of the petitioners is that they had not passed middle standard examination ; their medium of instruction had been English or Hindi and not Punjabi and it would be difficult rather impossible for them to clear the matriculation examination with Punjabi medium even by attending the Open School. This contention cannot be accepted. It is for the Board to consider as to what type of education is to be imparted in the Open Schools to make the students proficient for taking matriculation examination to be held in 1992. If the Board considers that in the policy framed for opening Punjab Open Schools, this purpose can be achieved, the Court is not to sit in judgment over such a policy decision as already observed by the Supreme Court in Maharashtra Board's case. The Regulation as amended is not at all unreasonable as it gives opportunity." even to the petitioners and the like candidates who had not passed middle standard examination to appear in the matriculation examination to be held in 1992 without any discrimination of medium of instruction as all such students who are to join Open School are to pass the matriculation in Punjabi medium. The Regulation as framed even otherwise is reasonable.

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that Regulation No. 6 as aforesaid is bad on account of being operative retrospectively. In support of this contention reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Nani Gopal Mitra v. State of Bihar, A. I. R. 1970 S.C. 1636. The ratio of the decision aforesaid cannot be applied to the case in hand That was a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act With regard to some procedural matters amendment was made during pendency of the appeal and it was observed that the procedural amendment would operate retrospectively but in cases instituted under old procedure and which were still pending, when the amendment came in to force, old procedure would apply. The other case relied upon the subject in Hukam Chand etc. v. Union of India, A. I. R. 1972 S.C. 2427. That was a case under the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act While making reference to Section 40 of the Act it was observed that the same did not empower the Central Government either expressly or by necessary implication to make rule retrospectively As far as position of law as enunciated in this judgment is concerned there is no dispute Sections 17 and 24 of the Act authorises the Board to make regulations, as stated above. The regulation made is to apply retrospectively for trie examination to be conducted in 1992 as already stated above. Further reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the decision of this Court in C. W. P. No 12503 of 1991 (Ashwani Sharma and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr.,. decided on August 28, 1991. In this case the petitioners joined the college in 1989-90, class 10+2 in Commerce faculty. They passed the same in April/May, 1991. As per Prospectus of the College then issued they could join B. Com. Part I in the College subject to the condition that they had obtained 40% marks. The college while changing the criteria for academic session 1991-92 allowed admission to B. Com. Part I to students of the college of commerce as well as others on merit. In this manner some of the petitioners who had secured more than 45% marks were ignored and had approached the Court. The Court observed in the operative part of the, judgment that undisputedly the old boys were to be given admission in B.Com. Part I according to the Prospectus prior to the change. The change could certainly be made but not to the prejudice of boys who had taken admission to the college on the explicit representation of the college that old boys would be given admission to B.Com. Part I who had secured 40% marks. The writ Petition was allowed by the Division Bench on August 28, 1991. The position in the present case is entirely different. Either before the amendment of the Regulation or thereafter the petitioner had not changed their position like the one in the case referred to above by joining any institution that the Board could be estopped from applying the amended provisions to the petitioners. If the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is analysed logically, the purpose and object of the Act and the Regulations framed there under would be frustrated. As has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners it would be unjust to implement Annexure P. 1 for a period of two years as the petitioners were given the impression under the old Regulation that on attaining the age of 14 years they would be permitted to take matriculation examination as private candidate without passing middle standard examination. If this contention is accepted in respect of the petitioners who have now just completed 14 years of age or little earlier, all the children who had joined class I or who were studying in class 7th would contend that they joined the schools hoping under the old Regulation they would appear in the matriculation examination on completion of 14 years of age without passing middle standard examination, and that the amended Regulation should not be enforced at least for a period of 7 years. In other words the contention of counsel for the petitioners boils down to this that any enactment, rule or regulation should be enforced from class I. If that is so no policy of the State would be implemented to upgrade the standard of education. Under Article 45 referred to above a duty is cast upon the State to make provision for education of the children till they attain the age of 14 years but that does not mean that after the children attain 14 years of age no enactment, rules or regulations can be made. Even for higher education it is the duty of the State to make provision. It is only under the provision of the Act, Rules or Regulations framed thereunder that a candidate can claim his right for admission to an examination. If the petitioners, for the reasons best known to them refuse to join Open School, they cannot claim as a matter of right to appear in matriculation examination as private candidates. By amendment of Regulation No. 6, as already stated no vested right of the petitioners has been infringed.