Allowed

Mohd.Tayyab v. The Secretary, State Board of Technical Education and

Telangana HC7 Jul 2008WP/22438/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a candidate who was barred from appearing for diploma examinations in 2007 due to a curriculum transition dispute. The court held that the readmission memo reset the completion timeline, entitling the petitioner to write the exams.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed; the Memo. B2/31/Exams./2006 dated 17.08.2007 was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to be allowed to appear for the examinations.

Mohd.Tayyab Vs The Secretary, State Board of… — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22438 of 2007

¶5

Between:

¶6

Mohd.Tayyab S/o.Md.Yakub r/o.7-69/1, Beside Mosque, Burgumpahad, Khammam District507114

¶7

..... PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

1 The Secretary, State Board of Technical Education & Training,BRKR Bhavan, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad 2 The Principal , Government Polytechnic, Kothagudem Khammam District

¶10

3 The Commissioner & Director of Technical Education Government of Andhra pradesh, 5th Block, BRKR Govt offices Building, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad-500029

¶11

.....RESPONDENTS

¶12

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ orders and directions and more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring that the acts deeds and things of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to appear for the Diploma Examinations for Mechanical Engineering PIN.No.03098-M-351, to be held from 25.10.2007 backlog examination M-304, to be held on 1.11.2007 are illegal, and against to law and much against to the legal, and fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to appear for the Diploma examinations for Mechanical Engineering PIN No.03098-M-351, to be held from 25.10.2007 backlong examination M-304, to be held on 1.11.2007 and allow the petitioner to complete the course by March /April 2009 as per curriculum C-00.

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.PALIVELA SATYARAJA BABU

¶14

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : MR. P.V.S.S.S.RAMA RAO

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR EDUCATION

¶16

The Court made the following :

¶17

O R D E R :

¶18

This writ petition has been filed by Mohd. Tayyab with a prayer to issue, a writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not allowing him to appear for the Diploma examinations for Mechanical Engineering PIN No.03098-M-351 to be held from 25.10.2007, backlog examination M- 304 to be held on 01.11.2007 as illegal.

¶19

2. This is the second journey of the petitioner to this Court. Earlier he approached this Court by filing W.P.No.6396 of 2001 when the respondents refused to receive the examination fee and application for final year Diploma in Mechanical Engineering course. The said writ petition came to be allowed, by order dated 19.07.2002. Thereafter, the Secretary, State Board of Technical Education and Training, Hyderabad-1^st respondent filed Writ Appeal No.2099 of 2002. The said writ appeal came to be allowed, by order dated 25.08.2004. The relevant portion of the order reads as hereunder:

¶20

“The learned Single Judge did not examine the issue as to whether the application or for that matter, the 2^nd respondent herein committed any irregularity or illegality in maintaining the attendance of the writ petitioner. There is no finding by the learned judge that the writ petitioner in fact attended all the classes but erroneously and arbitrarily the principal and the staff did not maintain the proper registers in the institution. Even without recording any such finding, the learned Single Judge directed the appellant herein to declare the results of the petitioner in respect of his examination. With due respect to the learned Judge, the view taken is not correct. This court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot compel the authorities to act contrary to law. The interim directions granted by this court itself does not confer any indefeasible right upon the writ petitioner to appear for the examination and for the declaration of the results. The writ petitioner is not entitled to appear for the examination in view of shortage of attendance.

¶21

Be it as it may, in pursuance of the directions of this court, the appellant herein had declared the result of the petitioner in which the petitioner failed. Therefore, the petitioner cannot derive any benefit out of the interim orders or the final order passed by this court.

¶22

For the aforesaid reason, the order under appeal is set aside. It shall be open to the petitioner to undergo the study of course once

¶23

again and put in requisite attendance to qualify himself to appear for the III year examination of DME course. The Principal, Government Polytechnic, Kothagudem, Khammam District shall consider the application of the petitioner to be filed and permit him to undergo the course in order to enable him to complete the requisite attendance. There shall accordingly.

¶24

The writ appeal shall accordingly stand allowed. No costs.”

¶25

Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.A.No.2099 of 2002, the Director of Technical Education, A.P., Hyderabad-3^rd respondent issued Memo.No.113/26445/2004, dated 18.12.2004 readmitting the petitioner under C-2000 curriculum for the academic year 2005-2006. The text of

¶26

the said Memo. reads as hereunder:

¶27

“With reference to the letter cited, the Director of Technical Education is pleased to accord permission to the Principal, G.P., Kothagudem to readmit the candidate into final year of the course on the basis of court order in C 2000 curriculum for the academic year 2005-2006, subject to the condition that he shall appear for any difference subject as identified by the Board by self study and not withstanding any regulation of the Board and subject to return of Original Transfer Certificate taken by the candidate under intimation to this office & Secretary, S.B.T.E.T., Hyderabad.”

¶28

Subsequently a Memo No.B2/31/Exams/2006, dated 07.08.2006 came to be issued by the office of the Principal, Government Polytechnic, Kothagudem, directing the petitioner to get instructions from the Secretary, State Board of Technical Education and Training, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (S.B.T.E.T., Hyderabad), with regard to his permission to pay the examination fee for Diploma Examination to be held in September/October, 2006. The S.B.T.E.T, Hyderabad-1^st respondent submitted remarks on the representation of the petitioner to the Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education (TE-II) Department, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad vide letter No.SBTET-114/1923/2001. The relevant portion of the letter reads as hereunder:

¶29

“As per the above statements A & B showing the performance of the candidate in Diploma examinations held in the month of October/November, 2005 and March/April,2006, and at present he is having only one backlog subject in III year (c-00) i.e. M-304 Design of Machine Elements to be completed to qualify for award of diploma. As he took readmission in III year (C-00) during the academic year 2005-2006, studied and appeared for final year examination during March/April,2006, his request for not studying III year again and allow him to appear for final year examinations become null and void.

¶30

The candidate however may appear for the backlog subject with code M-304 during October/November, 2006 Diploma examinations vide Govt.Memo No.14810/TE-II/2005-5 Higher Education (TE-II) Department, dated 15.02.2006 (copy enclosed) and qualify himself for award of Diploma by passing the backlog subject. This is submitted for kind information of the Govt.”

¶31

The office of the Principal, Govt. Polytechnic, Kothagudem, under Mo.No.B2/31/Exams/2006, dated 07.08.2006 rejected the application of the petitioner to appear for Diploma Examination to be held in September/October, 2006. The said memo is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶32

3. 1^st respondent filed counter-affidavit. P.T.Prabhakar, Secretary, State Board of Technical Education and Training, A.P., Hyderabad, has sworn to the counter-affidavit. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner joined in three year diploma course in the academic year 1998-99. At that time, C-96 curriculum governed the course. The petitioner has to pass the said course within six years i.e. before completion of the academic year 2003-2004. Since the petitioner could not get the eligibility to appear for final year examination in the academic year 2000-01 for want of required attendance, he was not allowed to write the third year examination in the month of April/May, 2001. Though the petitioner was not eligible to study the third year course in C-00, he was re-admitted in the third year during the academic year 2005-2006 pursuant to the directions of Court. In view of the re-admission of the petitioner in the academic year 2005-2006, he was allowed to complete the diploma before the academic year 2006-2007. Though he was given the time to complete his diploma, he could not pass the diploma by the end of the academic year 2006-2007. Therefore, the petitioner was not permitted to take the final year examinations scheduled to be held in the month of October, 2007. For better appreciation, I may refer paras.6 and 7 of the counter-affidavit and they are thus:

¶33

“6. I submit that as the petitioner is not eligible to appear for supplementary examinations held in the month of October/November, 2007, his application was not accepted. I submit that as the petitioner could not complete and pass the diploma course by the end of the academic year 2006-07, he is not eligible to write the examinations held

¶34

in the month of October/November, 2007 and accordingly, his request was rejected. I submit that the petitioner cannot contend that he is entitled to complete the diploma course before April, 2009 on the ground that the pin number has been changed from curriculum C-96 to Curriculum C-00. Purely based on the directions of this Hon’ble Court, the petitioner was given re-admission into third year diploma course, even though curriculum C-96 is not in existence, at time of his readmission. The benefits applicable to the students joined in curriculum C-00 is not applicable to the petitioner, as he belongs to curriculum C-96. I submit that petitioner has not joined in the first year diploma course in curriculum C-00 but readmitted in the said curriculum only to complete the third year course. Therefore the petitioner cannot state that the rejection letter dated 17.08.2007 of the second respondent is not accordance with curriculum C-00 and as such he is entitled to appear for supplementary examinations upto March/April, 2009.

¶35

7. I submit that if the students who were admitted in the curriculum C-96 were slowed to write the examinations for the backlog subjects, the petitioner will also be allowed along with them to complete his final year backlog subject M-304. Till such time the petitioner has to wait, otherwise he has to forfeit the diploma. Since the rules of the Board are not allowed the petitioner to appear for the examinations conducted subsequent to March/April, 2007, his candidature to appear for the examinations held in the month of October/November, 2007 is rightly rejected and the same cannot be faulted. The petitioner cannot blame the Board or the second respondent in not completing his diploma before March/April, 2007.”

¶36

4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 3-Board.

¶37

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner came to be readmitted under new curriculum in the academic year 2005-2006 subject to his passing difference subject as identified by the Board and since the petitioner passed the difference subject, the period allowed to him to complete the course commences from 20052006 and therefore, he is eligible to write the final year examinations scheduled to be held in October, 2007.

¶38

6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 3- Board submits that the petitioner joined in the year 1998-1999 under curriculum C-96 and he has to complete the course within six years and the period allowed under C-96 curriculum lapsed by 2004-2005 and therefore, the petitioner was not permitted to take the final year

¶39

examinations, scheduled to be held in the month of October, 2007.

¶40

7. Under Memo dated 18.12.2004, the relevant portion of which has already extracted above, the petitioner had been readmitted to the course under C-00 curriculum subject to the condition of his clearing the difference subject as identified by the Board. Accordingly, the petitioner cleared the difference subject and therefore, the maximum period for completion of the diploma course commences from 2005-2006. In which case, the order passed by the office of the Principal, Government Polytechnic, Kothagudem, Khammam District-2^nd respondent, rejecting his application to appear for the diploma examinations to be held in the month of October, 2007, cannot be sustained.

¶41

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed at the admission stage setting

¶42

aside the Memo.No.B2/31/Exams./2006, dated 17.08.2007. Since, the petitioner has appeared for the examinations pursuant to the interim direction given by this Court on 31.03.2008, there cannot be any impediment to the respondents to declare the result of the petitioner. No costs.

¶43

______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.

¶44

Date: 07^th July, 2008.

¶45

Note: Issue C.C. within a week. B/O cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies

¶46

Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}

Mohd.Tayyab v. The Secretary, State Board of Technical Education and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd.Tayyab v. The Secretary, State Board of Technical Education and

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

Nagapuri Komaraiah Vs The General Manager, Mandamarri Area

Master Medishetty Balakrishna Vs Tandur Municipal Corporation

Pothokatla Pacs Ltd., Vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation

Ajmeera Raghavulu S/o Bheemla Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by

Smt.Leelavathi Heda, Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

M/s.Visakha Sc, St Scavengers Sweepers and Substute Vs The Commissioner, Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation