Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. In reply to the writ petition, the Board had filed the return in which the only stand taken is that since the period of one year between the two examinations, that is, Matriculation Examination held in September, 1986. and the 'Plus One' Examination held in April, 1987, had not elapsed the petitioner was ineligible to appear in the 'Plus One' Examination. According to the Board, it was due to the negligence and oversight that the mistake was not detected earlier as the number of candidates was in thousands and. as such, a lapse by virtue of human error was bound to occur. It is further pleaded that the petitioner had made a misrepresentation and practised deception on the Board in obtaining attestation on her Admission Form and that she did not fulfil all the conditions of eligibility; therefore. cancellation of the result by the Board was in accordance with Regulation 8 of the Punjab School Education Board Senior Secondary Certificate Examination Part-1 Regulations 1986, regarding cancellation of result. Supplementing the averments made in its written statement. the Board's learned counsel Mr. Aftab Singh Bakhshi, has invoked in aid the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, in order to absolve the Board from the remissness or lapse on the part of the Board authorities in detecting the mistake in time. Reliance has also been placed by the learned counsel on Lewis Pugh Evans Pugh v. Ashutosh Sen. AIR 1929 PC 69. Niaz Ahmad Khan v. Parsottam Chandra, AIR 1931 All 154, John Minas Apcar v. Louis Caird Malchusc. AIR 1939 Ca1 473, Ganpat Ranglal Mahajan s. Mangilal Hiralal. AIR 1962 Madh Pra I44 and C.W.P. No. 6068 of 1986(Rakesh Kumari v. Punjab School Education Board. S.A.S. Nagar. decided on 7th May, 1987 : (Reported in AIR 1988 Punj & Har 241. by M. M. Punchhi. J. to plead that in the case of active misrepresentation. the party defrauded is neither at fault nor is estopped by their conduct.