Judgment:
ORDER
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a declaration that the action of the 1st respondent in directing the 2nd respondent to cancel the petitioner's admission into the Intermediate course as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue two year Intermediate Course.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that the petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for in view of the fact that the petitioner has been declared as having passed in X standard of All India Central Board of Secondary School Examination. The petitioner has produced the mark-sheet of that examination, dated 31-5-1994. From the said mark list, it is clear that the petitioner has been declared to have passed the said examination. On the basis of this mark list also and on the basis of the certificate issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education, the petitioner was admitted into the two years Intermediate Course of the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. The petitioner got admission in the Vignana Co-op. Junior College (Respondent No. 2), Vadla-mudi, Guntur for the said course. Aftergivingadmission to the petitioner, Respondent No. 2-College has sent a list of admitted candidates to the Board of Intermediate Education for approval. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1-Board has issued the impugned endorsement, dated 11-1-1995 to the effect that the candidate was not eligible for Intermediate Public Examination since the candidate has got failed marks in language i.e., in English. It is further noted in the said endorsement that the same may be informed to the candidate accordingly. A copy of the endorsement is filed in the Writ Petition along with material papers at page No. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this order of the respondent No. 1 is illegal and contrary to the Rules of admission of the Board, and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 'respondent No. 1-Board supported the said order of the Board and contended that the direction issued by respondent No. 1-Board to Respondent No. 2-College to cancel the admission of the petitioner was in accordance with law. He brought to my notice the rules of admission for two years Intermediate Course for the year 1987-88 of the Board. Along with those rules, an appendix is provided giving Form of Application for admission to the two years Intermediate Course and other ancillary matters including the list of other examinations recognised by the Board of Intermediate Education as equivalent to S.S.C., S.S.L.C., H.S.C. for the purpose of admission into first year and second year Intermediate Course in Andhra Pradesh. Under Item No. III, XI Standard of Central Board of Secondary Examination, New Delhi is recognised. Vide Item No. XX, Xth Standard of Central Board of Secondary Examination, New Delhi is recognized. In the case on hand, we are concerned with item No. XX because, the petitioner js seeking admission into the Intermediate Course on the basis that she passed the Xth Standard conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi. It is necessary for the purpose of further discussion, to extract Item No. XX as under:
'XX. DELHI
1. Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi.
All India Secondary School Examination at the end of X Class conducted by the CBSE New Delhi (even though they failed in any one subject out of seven) be eligible for admission into 1st year Intermediate Edn., subject to the following conditions.
(i) The candidates should have passed in English as compulsory subject in one of the two languages.
(ii) The candidate should have passed in the non-language subjects which he/she proposes to take under Part-Ill optional subjects of Intermediate course. For example a candidate is who offers to study M.P.C. or B.P.C. in Intermediate should have passed Maths and Science subjects in X class examination of CBSE. Similarly, one who desires to take Arts subjects in Intermediate should have passed in the Social Science subjects'.
The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 specifically relied on Item No. XX(i) in support of his contention that the candidate should have passed in English as compulsory subject in one of the two languages. He also further submitted that this is included by way of amendment in the year 1993. He brought to my notice the proceedings of the Secretary, Board of Intermediate Education, dated 3-3-1993 vide Rc. No. 1/E2-1/93. Under these proceedings, the amendment was proposed for making candidates eligible, for admission into the Intermediate Course, to the effect that such candidates should have passed in English as a compulsory subject as one of the two languages. This amendment has been ratified by the Board in its 37th meeting held on 27-9-1993 vide Item No. 31, it is resolved as under:
'Item -- 31: Two year Intermiediate Course -- Rules of Admission -- CBSE/ ICSE candidates -- Amendment to Rules --Ratification -- Reg.
Ratified. However, the candidates of CBSE/ICSE should pass in English which is compulsory subject.'
He submitted that this amendment has been incorporated in the rules, as extracted above, and on that basis, he submitted that this amendment had come into force with effect from 27-9-1993 and the petitioner has sought admission for the Course in question for the Academic year 1994-95. She filed her application in the month of June, 1994. On this basis, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 further submitted that the petitioner has not passed in English as a compulsory subject and accordingly, she is not eligible for the admission into the said course.
3. As against this, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was eligible on two counts namely, (1) that the petitioner has been declared as having passed the said C.B.S.E. examination (2) that the Rule 13 of the rules provides that when a candidate has studied in English medium at the qualifying examination, they are eligible for admission in English medium, irrespective of the marks secured by them in English at their qualifying examination. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's admission to the two years Intermediate course should not have been cancelled.
4. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of both sides. I have to note few admitted facts in this case. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has been declared to have passed the C.B.S.E. examination vide certificate dated 31-5-1994. It is an admitted fact that the marks in English is shown as 28 and she was placed at 'E-GRADE'. As per the examination Bye-laws of the Central Board of Secondary Education vide-Bye-law No. 41.1, the pass criteria in the said examination is provided as under:
'41.1 Pass Criteria (Secondary School Examinations)
(i) A candidate will be eligible to get the Pass Certificate of the Board, if he gets a grade higher than E in all subjects of internal assessment unless he is exempted. Failing this, the result of the external examination will be withheld but not for a period of more than one year.
(ii) In order to be declared as having passed the examination, a candidate shall obtain a grade higher than E in any four out of five subjects of external assessment.
(iii) The performance of a candidate who has offered an additional subject will be indicated in the statement of marks, provided that an additional subject shall not replace the main subject of examination.
(iv) In respect of candidates who have been exempted from the study of one of the subjects of external examination, the exemption so granted shall not mean any exemption from the Pass Criteria to such candidates meaning thereby that the candidate shall have to pass in all the remaining four subject for being declared as 'Pass'.
(v) However, candidates exempted from one or more subjects of internal examination shall be eligible for appearing in external examination and result shall be declared subject to fulfilment of other conditions laid down in the Pass Criteria.
(vi) No over all division/distinction/aggregate will be awarded'.
Vide Bye-law No. 41.1(ii), above a candidate may be declared as havbng passed if such candidates were to obtain a grade higher than 'E' grade in any four out of five subjects of external assessment. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner brought to . my notice that in all there are eight subjects; three internal and five external. The three internal subjects are; (1) Work experience, (2) Physical and Health Education and (3) Art Education. Examinations in these subjects are conducted internally by the School itself. In the instant case, we are not concerned with the internal examination. The following arc the external examination: (1) English, (2) Hindi, (3) Mathematics, (4) Science with practicals and (5) Social Science. The petitioner has been awarded Grade 'E' in English, Grade 'D1' in Hindi. Grade 'D2' in Mathematics, grade 'C1' in Science with practicals, and grade 'b1' in Social Science. Bye-law No. 38 of the C.B.S.E. Board Regulations provides rules regarding grading also. The relevant portion of the said Bye-law is extracted as under:
'38. Rules Regarding Grading:
..........(iv) The passing marks in such subjects ofexternal examination will be 33%. Howeverin a subject involving practical work, acandidate must obtain 33% marks in thetheory and 25% marks in the practical and33% in aggregate, in order to qualify in thatsubject.'
In view of these rules, it is clear that in English the petitioner has not secured passing marks since the marks secured are only 28, that was less than 33% minimum marks required for passing. As the petitioner had secured the grade more than 'E' in all other subjects, the petitioner has been declared as having passed the said C.B.S.E. examination in terms of Bye-law No. 41.1. As I have already noticed above that in order to be declared as having passed the C.B.S.E. examination, the candidate required to obtain grade higher than 'E' in any four subjects out of five subjects of external subjects. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein had obtained 'grade higher than 'E' in all the four subjects out of five subjects, except in English in which she had obtained grade 'E'. Though under Bye-law No. 38(iv), the petitioner had not secured pass marks required, but still the petitioner was entitled to be declared as passed in the said C.B.S.E. examination in terms of Bye-law No. 41-1. From these facts, it is clear that the petitioner had in fact, failed in English subject and if that is so, under Item No. XX of the eligibility Rules appended to the Admission Rules of the Board, the petitioner was not eligible to be admitted to the Intermediate course. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended, that under Rule 13 of the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh Rules, the petitioner was eligible in spite of her failed result in English, because the medium of instruction of the petitioner was English. It is submitted that the petitioner studied in Andhra Pradesh through Dr. K. L. Prasad Public School, Ring Road, Guntur, her medium of instruction was English and under R. 13 of the said Rules,marks obtained in English in qualifying examination shall not be insisted upon. To appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is also necessary for me to extract the said R. 13 as under:
'13. MEDIUM OF INSTRUCTION:
(a) Telugu shall be the medium of instruction in the two year Intermediate Course.
(b) The candidates who studied in Media other than English at the qualifying examination seeking admission in English medium, must secure not less than 40% of marks in English at the qualifying examination. A concession of 5 marks is given to S.C. and S.T. candidates only. If the candidates studied in English medium at the qualifying examination they are eligible for admission in English medium irrespective of the marks secured by them in English at their qualifying examination.
(c) If the medium in which a candidate has studied the qualifying examination is not available in the town where the candidate seeks admission into the Intermediate Course, such candidate may be permitted to seek admission in English medium even though he secures less than 40% of marks in English in the qualifying examination (vide Govt. Memo No. 17931/77-4 Edn., dated 26-7-1977 communicated in Director of Higher Education Proceedings Re. No.4106-K1-I/ 76, dated 29-7-1977.
(d) No section or medium should be opened without the prior approval by the Director of Higher Education.'
From Rule 13(b) as extracted above, it is clear that if the candidate has studied in a medium other than English shall necessarily secure 40% of marks in English; and if the candidate has studied in English medium at the qualifying examination, they are eligible for admission in English medium of the Intermediate Course irrespective of the marks secured by them at 'their qualifying examination. But, this provision shall necessarily be construed in relation to Item No. XX(ii) of the Eligibility Rules appended to the main rules. The combined reading of Item No. XX(ii)and R. 13 would give us the resultant position that if the candidates were to pass in English as a compulsory subject (as in one of the two languages), for such persons in addition to the pass marks in English, more marks shall not be insisted upon in terms of R. 13(b), if a candidate has studied in a medium other than English at the qualifying examination, must necessarily secure not less than 40% of marks in English at the qualifying examination. This condition of securing 40% of marks is relaxed to a candidate who studied at the qualifying examination in English medium. In other words, in terms of Item No. XX(ii) of the rules, if a person passed in English as a compulsory subject securing minimum percentage of passing marks (as in one of the two subjects) and if such person secured less than 40% of marks in English would be eligible for admission. For a person who has passed the qualifying examination in the medium other than English, it is not enough if he had only passed in English, but he should necessarily secure not less than 40% of marks in English. According to the accepted rules of interpretation, two relevant provisions applicable should be interpreted in such a way that the object of the rules is achieved. Any other interpretation that would result in absurdity, should be avoided. If the interpretation of R. 13(b) as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, then even if a person has secured zero marks or two marks in English, if such a person has studied in English medium would be eligible for admission in terms of R. 13(b) of the rules. Such argument ignores Item No. XX(ii) of the eligibility rules. Therefore, the petitioner being a failed candidate in English as a compulsory subject in , the qualifying examination was not eligible for admission in the Intermediate Course of the Board-respondent No. 1. Accordingly, her admission was rightly cancelled by the Board-respondent No. 1 and as such, there is neither illegality nor irregularity in passing the impugned order.
5. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already-completed her first year course and now she is studying in the second year andthe cancellation of her admission at this stage would cause her great hardship and also that the respondent No. 1 is estopped in putting-forth any other contentions. The learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to my notice an interim order of this Court, dated 23-3-1995 in W.P. M.P. No. 6798 of 1995 in the present writ petition. By this interim order, the respondents were directed to permit the petitioner to continue in the said two years Intermediate course without reference to the communication issued by the 1st respondent in RC.No.C/MAR/95, dated 11-1-1995 and also permitting the petitioner to take the first year examination to be held on 29-3-1995 or on any other date pending further orders on this writ petition. At the out set, I may point out that there is no estopped against a statute. More over, if the petitioner was not eligible for admission to a particular course and if she was allowed to continue the same under the interim order of this Court, the same would not confer any right on the petitioner. The interim order ultimately merges with the final order and the order of the dismissal of the writ petition on merits makes the interim order ineffective. Therefore, much reliance cannot be placed on the interim order granted by this Court. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in more than one of the recent decision, has held that the Courts should not interfere with the academic activities of the Educational Institutions by issuing directions in favour of the candidates who are not eligible for admission to a particular course. For instance, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kr. Bansal, : AIR1993SC2412 has observed as under:
'6. We are afraid that this kind of administration of interlocutory remedies, more guided by sympathy quite often wholly misplaced, does no service to anyone. From the series of orders that keep coming before us in academic matters, we find that loose, ill-conceived sympathy masquerades as interlocutory justice exposing judicial discretion to the criticism of degenerating into private benevolence. This is subversive of academic discipline, or whatever is left of it, leading to serious impasse in academic life. Admissionscannot be ordered without regard to the eligibility of the candidates. Decisions on matters relevant to be taken into account at the interlocutory stage cannot be deferred or decided later when serious complications might ensue from the interim order itself. In the present case, the High Court was apparently moved by sympathy for the candidates than by an accurate assessment of even the prima facie legal position. Such orders cannot be allowed to stand. The Courts should not embarrass academic authorities by itself taking over their functions.'
From the above law declared by the Hoh'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that it would not be proper for the Courts to direct the Educational Institutions to admit the students who are not eligible only on the basis of sympathy for the students, so as to embarrass the academic authorities by taking over their functions. To the same effect is the ruling of the Supreme Court in St. John's Teacher Training Institute (For Women), Madurai v. State of Tamil Nadu, : [1993]3SCR985 . In view of this law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled lo any relief as the petitioner was not eligible for the two years Intermediate Course of respondent No. 1-Board.
6. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon a judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court dated 29-9-1994 passed in W.P. No. 4187 of 1994 contended that a similar relief also could be granted to the petitioner in this case. A typed copy of the said judgment was made available to me. From the reading of the said judgment of the learned single Judge, it is clear that no law is declared in that case, considering all the rules applicable to the facts of this case. That decision, therefore, cannot be taken as a precedent. Nevertheless, the learned single Judge in that case directed the respondents to admit the student in the Intermediate Course on the ground that the amended rule which provided that the candidates should have passed in English as a compulsory subject was not made known to the students in that petition on the basis of the material placedon record in that case. But, in the instant case, respondent No. 1-Board has brought to my notice the proceedings of the Board of Intermediate Education, A.P., Hyderabad dated 19-5-1995 in Rc. No. 54/E2-1/93 directing all the Principals of the Colleges to make admissions of the students in .their respective colleges keeping in view of the amended Rules of 1993. But, if respondent No. 2-College makes the admission of the petitioner contrary to the instructions issued on 19-5-1993, the petitioner cannot plead that the petitioner was not knowing about the amendment. When the amended rule has already come into force with effect from 27-9-1993 and when the petitioner had sought admission in the month of June, 1994, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that she was not aware of the amendment that came into force with effect from 27-9-1993. Therefore, it is clear that the facts of this case are distinguishable from the facts of the earlier case decided by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 4187 of 1994 on 29-9-1994.
7. For the above reasons, I am of the opinion that there are no merits in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.
8. Petition dismissed.