Dismissed

Deoki Nandan Roys v. the Union of India and Ors.

Patna HC24 Apr 2013CWJC/7733/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a father seeking re-evaluation of his son's Class X results and admission to the Science stream. The court held the petition was misconceived because the father suppressed material facts, specifically that his son had already taken a transfer certificate from the school before the petition was filed.

What did the court decide?

Writ application dismissed on the ground of material suppression of facts regarding the student transfer and failure to seek re-evaluation within time.

Deoki Nandan Roys Vs the Union of India and Ors. — Education and Admissions | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7733 of 2012

¶3

====================================================== Deoki Nandan Roy S/O Late Rameshwar Roy Ex. J.C. 208674 Sub/Ora R/O L.I.G. Flat No. 459, Hanuman Nagar, P.S. Patrakar Nagar, Distt. Patna .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India Through Secretary, Higher Secondary Education, Govt. Of India, New Delhi 2. H.R.D. Ministry, Government Of India 3. The Secretary, C.B.S.E. Board, New Delhi 4. The Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Lohia Nagar, Kankarbagh, Patna-20 5. AC/E.O. Regional Office Kendriya Vidyalaya, Lohia Nagar, Kankarbagh, Patna-20 .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mahesh Prasad No.2, Adv. Mr. Rewati Kant Raman, Adv. For the K.V.S. : Mr. Gopal Krishna Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶4

3 24-04-2013 Heard counsel for the parties.

¶5

The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application

¶6

reads as follows:

¶7

“Direction to the respondents to publish the result of the son of the petitioner namely Vikrant after re-evaluating his answer book of Class XIth and continue him to read science subject till Std.XII so that he may not suffer any loss and injury.”

¶8

Mr. Mahesh Prasad No.II, learned counsel for the

¶9

petitioner, has submitted that the son of the petitioner, namely, Vikrant had appeared in the practical of Science paper of Class X in C.B.S.E. Examination and since the son of the petitioner was

¶10

Patna High Court CWJC No.7733 of 2012 (3) dt.24-04-2013

¶11

¶12

given no marks in the said practical examination of C.B.S.E. Class X, he had secured the Grade Point 05 as a result whereof the authorities of Kendriya Vidyalaya School, Lohiya Nagar, Kankarbagh, Patna did not admit the son of the petitioner in Science stream of Class XI and he got deprived of the course that he wanted to pursue only on account of fault on the part of the respondents.

¶13

In this case a counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no.4, the Principal of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Lohiya Nagar wherein it has been explained that the prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is wholly misconceived basically due to the fact that the son of the petitioner after being admitted in Class XI in Commerce stream in Kendriya Vidyalaya School, Lohiya Nagar had in fact abandoned his course after he was declared to have failed in the examination. In this regard it has been stated that the son of the petitioner was given admission in Commerce stream because he had obtained 05 Grade Point in the subject of Science, whereas the management of the school has taken policy decision not to grant admission of anyone in Science stream securing less than 06 CGPA and as such, that issue also became a fait accompli for the son of the petitioner.

¶14

It is in this regard that the respondent Principal of

¶15

Patna High Court CWJC No.7733 of 2012 (3) dt.24-04-2013

¶16

¶17

Kendriya Vidyalaya School has also explained that after the son of the petitioner was admitted in Commerce stream in Class XI of his school he had miserably performed in the subject of Mathematics and Accountancy and after he had failed in the main examination he was allowed another opportunity to appear in the supplementary examination in two subjects, namely, Mathematics and Accountancy but even in the supplementary examination he had failed in both subjects and as such, he was detained in Class XI in Session 2010-11. To that extent it would be relevant to quote paragraphs no. 10, 11 and 12 of the counter affidavit, which reads as follows:

¶18

“10. That the deponent further states that as per extant Admission Guidelines of 2010 of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan the minimum requirement for admission Science Stream for Class XI was Grade/ Points-6 (six) in Science Subject and Cumulative Grade Point Average (C.G.P.A.) also 06(six) in All India Science Secondary School Examination, 2010 (Class X Board) whereas per the marks statement of the son of the petitioner he got only 5 (five) Grade Points in Science Stream with C-2 grading as such he was not even eligible for getting science stream as such there is no scope for the Vidyalaya to allow him to read science in Class XI or Class XII.

¶19

That the deponent states that the son of the petitioner, namely, Master Vikrant as per Vidyalaya

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.7733 of 2012 (3) dt.24-04-2013

¶21

¶22

records was a regular student of Class XI Commerce stream and appeared at the session ending examination 2010-11 and his result was supplementary in two subjects i.e. Mathematics and Accountancy.

¶23

That the deponent further states that the candidate appeared at both Mathematics and Accountancy subjects in the supplementary examination and failed as such he was finally declared failed in both subjects in Class XI whereafter he took transfer certificate.”

¶24

As would be noted the son of the petitioner having failed in Class XI examination in Commerce stream in 2010-11 Session had taken Transfer Certificate on 14.9.2011 and to that extent paragraph no.8 of the counter affidavit is quite specific that the petitioner has taken the transfer certificate of his son, Vikrant on 14.9.2011 much prior to filing of the writ application and in fact was not student of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Lohiya Nagar as on the date of filing of the writ application i.e. 18.4.2012.

¶25

In the background of the aforementioned fact this Court must hold that the present writ application is wholly misconceived and ill-advised. In fact when the petitioner being father and natural guardian of the student Vikrant has made a material suppression of fact that his son had already left the school way back on 14.9.2011, this writ application for the relief sought, as quoted above, is fit to be dismissed on this ground alone.

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.7733 of 2012 (3) dt.24-04-2013

¶27

¶28

The concealed effort of the learned counsel for the petitioner to now question the result of C.B.S.E. Class X examination which was declared in the month of June, 2010 and for which the mark sheet has also been issued Vide Annexure „B‟ to the counter affidavit on 28.5.2010 must be deprecated. First of all this is not the subject matter of the writ application and secondly the procedure meant for re-evaluation of the answer sheet or question the marks allotted in the C.B.S.E. examination required the petitioner to deposit the fees before C.B.S.E. seeking re-evaluation of the answer books of his son. That was never done within the prescribed period of one month from the date of declaration of the result in the year 2010. In fact this issue was already given up by the petitioner or his son Vikrant when he had taken admission in Commerce stream of C.B.S.E. Class XI in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Lohiya Nagar. Thus, after he had already failed in Class XI examination and had also taken transfer certificate this issue being raised after almost two years of declaration of C.B.S.E. examination without even making a prayer to this effect in the writ application has to be held as wholly misconceived.

¶29

This Court would not like to say anything more as to whether it is advice of the learned counsel for the petitioner or

¶30

Patna High Court CWJC No.7733 of 2012 (3) dt.24-04-2013

¶31

¶32

brain work of the petitioner, the father of the student Vikrant but either of them individually or collectively both of them have landed the poor student Vikrant in trouble.

¶33

That being so, this Court does not find any merit in this writ application and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶34

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J)

¶35

surendra/-

Deoki Nandan Roys v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deoki Nandan Roys v. the Union of India 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

Rana Nand Ram Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Taswari Begum Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Dr.Jagat Narayan Nayak Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Chaturbhuj Manjhi Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Laxmi Kumari Devi Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

The State Of Bihar Through The Superintendent Of Police Namely Ajit Kumar Satyarthi Vs Rohit Kumar Jha @ Rohit Jha