Quashed

Shivaleela Laxman Gurav v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Aug 2005WP/5000/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the cancellation of her 12th standard result, the petitioner sought admission to the D.Ed. course. The High Court quashed the Board's order due to unexplained delay, allowing her to complete her studies.

What did the court decide?

The cancellation of the Petitioner's result by the Divisional Board was quashed and set aside to allow her to complete her D.Ed. course.

Shivaleela Laxman Gurav Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO.5000 OF 2005

¶5

 Shivaleela Laxman Gurav ..Petitioner.

¶6

Vs.

¶7

 The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents.

¶8

 Mr.Amit Sale for the Petitioner.

¶9

 Mr.Bhushan Kakade, AGP for Respondent No.1.

¶10

 Ms.Deepa Chavan for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶11

CORAM :A.P.SHAH &

¶12

 DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, JJ.

¶13

 18th August, 2005.

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

 1. The Petitioner appeared for the Higher

¶16

 Secondary Examination conducted by the Maharashtra
 Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board in
 February 2004, as a student of the Bharat High
 School and Kannada Junior College, Utgi, Taluka
 Jath, District Sangli. The results were declared
 in June 2004 and the Petitioner was declared to

¶17

 have passed the examination by obtaining 70.67%

¶18

¶19

 marks. The Petitioner applied for admission to the
 D.Ed. Course through the centralised admissions
 process and was informed on 3rd September, 2004 of
 her selection in the merit list and of the grant of
 admission to her for the D.Ed. course conducted by
 a college at Akkalkot. The Petitioner was at that
 stage called upon to remain present for an enquiry
 in the office of the Divisional Board on 18th
 August, 2004. The Petitioner attended the enquiry
 when she was informed of an allegation against her
 of the commission of certain malpractices in the

¶20

 examination. The Petitioner was asked as to
 whether a double holographic sticker had been
 affixed by her to the answer books, to which she
 replied in the negative. The Petitioner thereupon
 received another communication dated 8th September,
 2004 and in pursuance thereof she attended an
 enquiry on 10th September, 2004. On 8th November,
 2004 she was called upon to submit her original
 mark list and school leaving certificate. On 10th
 June, 2005 the Petitioner was informed that her
 result at the examination which was held in
 February-March 2004 stood cancelled and that she
 was debarred for appearing at the 12th Standard
 Examination until October 2004.

¶21

¶22

 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing on

¶23

 behalf of the Petitioner and learned counsel
 appearing on behalf of the Board. The answer
 sheets of the Petitioner at the 12th Standard
 Examination which formed the basis of the action
 which has been adopted by the Board were produced
 before the Court. We are satisfied that the
 finding that has been arrived at by the Board of
 malpractice in the course of the examination cannot
 be faulted. The affixation of a double holographic
 sticker together with certain identification marks
 at the foot of certain pages of the answer sheet
 were in our view material sufficient for the Board
 to initiate action and to arrive at the conclusion
 that the candidate had committed a malpractice in
 the course of the examination. The Petitioner has
 been proceeded against together with a group of
 five other students. The action of the Board has
 not been even alleged to be malafide. The finding
 that has been arrived at in the enquiry cannot
 therefore be faulted.

¶24

 3. We are, however, of the view that there is
 an unexplained delay on the part of the Board and

¶25

¶26

 this is a circumstance which would weigh in
 structuring the ultimate relief if any that should
 be granted in these proceedings. The Board had

¶27

 decided to cancel the performance at the
 examination held in February-March 2004 of the
 Petitioner and to restrain her from appearing until
 October 2004. A communication was issued on behalf
 of the Divisional Board on 9th May, 2005 and which
 was forwarded by the institution to the Petitioner

¶28

 on 10th June, 2005. In the meantime, the
 Petitioner has already completed her studies for
 the First Year of the D.Ed. Course. At this
 stage, if the Petitioner is required to appear for
 the 12th Standard Examination again, it would
 amount to the imposition of a penalty in excess of
 what was originally envisaged in the order of the
 Divisional Board. We are, therefore, of the view
 that the ends of justice would be served if, the
 Petitioner is now allowed to pursue and complete
 her D.Ed. Course. The cancellation of the result

¶29

 of the Petitioner by the Divisional Board is, in
 the circumstances, quashed and set aside. The
 Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall
 be no order as to costs.

Shivaleela Laxman Gurav v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivaleela Laxman Gurav v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Jagannath Jyoti Yadav. Vs G.V. Sapkal(D.H.) S.K. Patil (D.H.) D.S.Patil andORS

Abhay Babulal Shah Vs the Wai Urban Co-Op.Bank Ltd. and Anr.

M/S.Power Transline Industries Vs Union of India and Anr.

Ravindra Lahudas Pisal Vs Maharashtra Public Service Commission and Anr.

Pradeep Devidas Malolkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Santosh Amarchand Lodha and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.