Judgment:
W.P.NO.11238/13 09-07-2013 Shri I.S.Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Govt.
Advocate, on advance notice for the respondents.
Challenging the action of the respondents Board of Secondary Education in not permitting the petitioners to answer the question paper English (Second Language) and its teaching in Hindi, this writ petition has been filed.
The petitioners are students who appeared in the D.Ed.
main examination Second year conducted in the year 2013.
According to the petitioner in the subject of English (Second Language) and its teaching, question paper was in English and no instructions were given in the question paper as to in which language the question paper is to be answered.
However, on the ground that all the questions papers which have been answered in Hindi by the students have awarded only 'o' mark and order Annexure P-5 was issued by the Board of Secondary Education on 01-08-2013 and challenging this order, this writ petition is filed.
The only ground raised by the petitioner in this writ petition for challenging the aforesaid action is that in the previous two years when the examinations were conducted in the same subject in question, even though the questions were answered in English but option was given,where certain questions in Section-B could be answered either in English or in Hindi.
It is stated that in this academic year, no such option was given and not the impugned action is taken.
Inter alia contending that the option was given in the last academic year for answering the question in certain portion in Hindi should have also been granted and in following the different policy this year an error has been committed, this writ petition is filed.
Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Govt.
Advocate, for the State points out that subject in question was English (Second Language) 2 and its teaching and if there is no statutory rules or regulations which contemplates answer of the question in Hindi, it is stated that in the absence of any statutory rules, no interference can be made.
That apart Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, points out that when the subject in question itself is English (Second Language) and its teaching, the contention of the petitioner that the answer can be written in Hindi seems to be unsustainable and is liable to be rejected.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
No statutory rules, regulations, bylaws or any other provision have brought to our notice, on the basis of which, it can be said that the relief claimed for by the petitioners and the challenge made in this writ petition is based upon.
On the contrary the syllabus in subject in question if filed Annexure P-8, there is nothing in the syllabus to indicate that any indication is made in the syllabus whereby the questions in the subject of English (Second Language) and its teaching, can be answered in Hindi.
However, in one of question paper said to have been of the previous year is Annexure P-2, certain question in Section-B was indicated to be optional and the examinee was given an option to answer this in Hindi.
Similar provisions made in another question paper of the year 2010 but for the current year in the question paper (Annexure P-4).no such option is given.
The petitioners want this court to direct the respondents to maintain the aforesaid parity on the basis of option given in the last two years and hold the action of the respondents to be unsustainable.
This can be done only if there is any statutory rules, regulations, provisions or bylaws providing for the same and therefore a mandamus issued commanding respondent to follow the same.
As already indicated hereinabove , no such rules, regulations, bylaws or provisions are brought to our notice on the basis of which it can be said that the respondents have committed any violation which warrants interference.
Merely because in some of previous yeaRs.3 certain options were given, we cannot issue a mandamus to follow the same system this year also particularly in the absence of any statutory right being available in this regard permitting answering of the questions in Hindi.
That apart the prayer made by the petitioners also seems to be in-logical, misconceived and unsustainable.
The subject in question is English (Second Language) and its teaching and if the answers to the question in the subject are permitted to be given in Hindi, it is not known as to how the requirement of the learning English is fulfilled.
That being so, Shri Sanjay Dwivedi is right in contending that the contentions of the petitioners are misconceived as already indicated hereinabove in the absence of any statutory rules or regulations being shown to be violated and in the absence of any provisions enforceable in law being shown to be breached, we see no reason to interfere into the matter particularly when the subject in question is English and the respondents are only insisting upon to answer all the questions in English.
Accordingly, finding no substance in the writ petition warranting interference, this writ petition is dismissed.
(RAJENDRA MENON) (A.K.SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE hsp