Allowed

Amita Chaurasiya Thru Father Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P Thru Secy Secondary Edu Lko and Ors.

Allahabad HC23 Jul 2024WRIC/1184/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that Rule 19'ka' of the U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Rules was arbitrary as it cancelled candidature without a hearing. It set aside the order cancelling the petitioner's candidature and directed the Board to declare the examination result.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 17.11.2016 set aside; State respondents directed to declare petitioner's examination result within three weeks.

Amita Chaurasiya Thru Father Sunil Kumar Vs State… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:49833

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1184 of 2017

¶4

Petitioner :- Amita Chaurasiya Thru Father Sunil Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru Secy Secondary Edu Lko And Ors

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Ran Vijay Singh,Jyoti Prakash,Sagar Singh,Shri Ram Maurya

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Ravi P. Singh

¶7

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶8

Heard Sri Jyoti Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4.

¶9

The petitioner is a student of Class 10th and an aspirant for appearing in the Board Examinations conducted by the U.P. Board, Allahabad, had approached this Court being aggrieved by order dated 17.11.2016, passed by the Controlling Officer, High School Examination on behalf of Additional Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Regional Office, Allahabad wherein in the light of Rule 19'ka' petitioner's candidature has been expunged and he has not been permitted to appear in the High School Examination for the year 2017.

¶10

In the aforesaid circumstances, present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner stating that the petitioner has been studying in Kalindi Gupta Mahatma Gandhi Balika Inter College, Safipur, District - Unnao and she had filled up examination form for Class 10th and when she went to find out the roll number, she was informed that her application was made from two different schools and therefore her name has been removed from the roll vide order dated 17.11.2016.

¶11

It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that when the said order was received by the Institution where petitioner was studying as well as other Institution namely Adarsh Ucchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Mehni Kheda, Hardoi, clarification was made that there was a mistake by the said Institution and accordingly the respondents were informed by means of letter dated 24.11.2016, from the said Institution.

¶12

It is categorically stated that the petitioner had never studied or filled up any form for appearing in the High School Board Examination from respondent no. 6 and in the aforesaid facts as approached this Court challenging order dated 17.11.2016.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the mistake if any, was committed by respondent no. 6 and the petitioner at no stage filled up two application forms. Apart from the above, it is submitted that Rule 19'ka' of the U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Rules, which provides that a student of Class 9th and 10th as well as Intermediate shall fill up only one examination form for appearing in the Board Examinations and in case more than one form are filled up, same shall be disallowed and the offending student will not be allowed to participate in the examinations and his/her candidature would be cancelled.

¶14

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has submitted that petitioner has filled up examination forms from two separate Institutions one as Regular candidate and another as Private candidate, which amounts to filling up two examination forms for the same purpose, and as per Rule 19'ka' it is not permissible.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶16

It is noticed that a student is allowed to fill up only one examination form and thereafter he/she is allotted only one examination center, but it would be inequitable in case of any mistake or otherwise two examination forms are found to be filled up by the candidate then his/her entire candidature from both the centers would be cancelled. Such a provision is clearly arbitrary inasmuch as there is no provision for giving any opportunity of hearing prior to cancellation of candidature of a student.

¶17

In the present case mistake by both the Institutions is well exhibited and is on record and was communicated to the State respondents, but they proceeded to pass the order cancelling candidature of the petitioner from both the examination centers.

¶18

A careful reading of Rule 19'ka' would make it clear that though a student is permitted to fill up only one examination form and he/she would be issued only one admit card against said form and if due to any mistake or otherwise two form are found, liberty should be given to the student to chose either of the two centers from where she/he wishes to appear in the examination and in case the student does not exercise such option within stipulated time, the Board would be at liberty to cancel any one examination center and permit the petitioner to appear at the other examination enter and admit card should be issued accordingly.

¶19

In view of above, considering the fact that by means of

¶20

interim order of this Court dated 18.01.2017, where the petitioner has been provisionally permitted to appear in the examination, the result of such examination deserves to be released.

¶21

In the light of discussion made above, impugned order dated 17.11.2016 is hereby set aside. The State respondents are directed to declare result of petitioner forthwith say within three weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order before respondent no. 2.

¶22

The writ petition stands allowed .

¶23

Order Date :- 23.7.2024 A. Verma

¶24

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶25

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Amita Chaurasiya Thru Father Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P Thru Secy Secondary Edu Lko and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amita Chaurasiya Thru Father Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P Thru Secy Secondary Edu Lko and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C/M Janta Viddyalaya Junior High School Arobar Block Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Basic Education ANUBHAG-6 andORS

M/S Lavi Industries Hardoi Thru Proprietor Vs Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow

M/S Dhaniram Mannilal Hardoi Thru Partner Vs Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow

Anoop Kumar Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Stamp and Registration, Lko. and 4 Others

Rajiya Bai Vs Branch Manager, U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. Bhinga Shrawasti and Another

Mohd. Shafik Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 7 Others