Mamta Kumari Vs. Bihar School Examination Board and ors.

Mamta Kumari vs Bihar School Examination Board and ors.

Disposition Application allowed Court Jharkhand Decided Jan 30, 2002

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/518924

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/518924
Court: Jharkhand High Court
Judge: Tapan Sen, J.
Decided On: Jan 30, 2002
Case Number: WP (C) No. 3213 of 2001
Subject: Constitution
Disposition: Application allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Examination - Declaration of result by Board--Issuance of mark-sheet and certificate--Petitioner deposited the requisite fee for registration--All necessary paper duly scruitinised by Bihar School Examination Board and Board was salisfied with eligibility--She was allowed to appeared in the examination and passed in...

Key legal issue: Constitution
Outcome / disposition: Application allowed
Acts & sections: Education Law

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mamta Kumari

Advocate M.M. Pan and; A. Minz, Advs.

Respondent

Bihar School Examination Board and ors.

Advocate A. Sahay and; Manoj Prasad, Advs.

Legal References

Acts: Education Law
Reported In: 2002(50)BLJR663

Excerpt

.....record including the power to punish for its contempt. this special jurisdiction is inherent in a court of record from the very nature of the court itself. the said special power is not subject to the procedural law either of the criminal procedure code or the contempt of courts act. the high court can deal with the matter summarily and can adopt its own procedure. however, if the high court initiates the proceeding as a court of record, principle of natural justice must be applied and the contemner should be given sufficient opportunity to know the accusation and to defend himself. in the instant case, the contemner was served with the notice to show cause. he was well aware of the accusation. he also admitted his guilt. in view thereof, contention of the contemner lawyer that he was not heard on merit of the contempt application and the impugned judgment of punishing petitioner in contempt of court is violative of principles of natural justice, is not tenable. article 215: contempt proceedings review of conviction held, it is the solemn duty of the bench and bar to maintain and uphold the majesty, authority and dignity of the courts for the sustenance and progress of democracy in our country particularly at the juncture when there are number of instances of outside attempt to disintegrate and destroy the democratic set up of our country. such conduct of a member of the bar brings the authority of the court and the administration of justice into disrespect, erodes and undermine the foundation of the judiciary by shaking faith and confidence of the people in the ability of the courts to deliver free and fair justice, it is a deliberate attempt to insult the high court and denigrate the authority and solemnity and court strongly deprecate such attempt made with biased attitude. such indiscriminate allegations against judges, who are the members of the bench, cannot be a ground for review of the impugned judgment. punishment of prohibiting appearance of..........had actually been sent by the deputy commissioner, lohardaga. 7. it appears that even after such order, no such specific answer has been given by the counsel for the school examination board stating that the deputy commissioner, lohardaga had in fact submitted any report. 8. the stand taken by the respondent board appears to be an excuse to evade the due process of law on the one hand and also amounts to encouraging frustration amongst school going children who would be future citizens of india. the procedure, in relation to holding of such examinations is so explicit that even prior to students appearing in the examination, all care and caution is taken, all inquiries are made and the process of finally allowing these young children to appear is put to rest on the allotment of registration number, roll number and the issuance of admit card. one fails to understand as to what further inquiry can be possibly conceived of and that too, after a young boy or a girl has already faced the figours of sitting in the examination. 9. this court is of the opinion that such actions sought to be assailed in this writ application is extremely arbitrary and, in fact, it amounts to harassment by the state and that too, upon the extremely younger generation who would be future citizens of india. 10. such a situation must be prevented. once the basic preliminary procedures are conducted and a candidate is allowed to sit in the examination the state thereafter, cannot be allowed to withhold his/her results or mark sheet on the ground of further inquiry because all inquiries are deemed to have been completed once the student is allowed to sit in the examination and complete writing/appearing in all the subjects. 11. the facts in this case are also similar to the ones brought on record by the petitioner by annexure-9 series. 12. it is also to be noted that the cross list (annexure-6) also shows the petitioner to have passed in the second division. 13. in view of the what have been.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Tapen Sen, J.

1. Heard.

2. In this case the petitioner has made a prayer, inter alia, for a direction upon the respondent to provide mark-sheet and certificate and also for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the order dated 29.06.2000 as contained in annexure-7 to the writ application whereby and where under the Deputy Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna (Respondent No. 2) directed the Head Mistress, Project Girls' High School, Kuru, not to issue any certificate against students whose names had been marked with the remark 'withheld'. The petitioner, Mamta Kumari, has stated that she appeared as a private candidate through Project Girls' High School, Kuru in the Annual Secondary Examination, 2000. She has also stated that prior to her appearance in the said examination, she had deposited the requisite fees for her registration and that she had been registered by the Examination Board vide an-nexure-4 and was given Registration No. 0131/014/02079/99. The petitioner has also stated that all necessary papers were duly scrutinised by the Board and only, thereafter, when the Board was satisfied with regard to the eligibility of every student concerned that she was allowed to appear. She was also allotted Roll Code No. 01302 and her Roll No. was 0992. Her centre was Ursuline Convent High School, Lohardaga.

3. The petitioner has also stated that she, thereafter, appeared in all the subjects both, theoretical as well as practical. However, when the crossed list was issued it was found that although she had passed in the second division, yet, a remark had been inserted saying 'withheld'.

4. The petitioner, thereafter, made several representation before the Principal, but the Principal showed inability to issue mark-sheet, school leaving certificate, etc. Having been faced with such harassment at such a tender age the petitioner has been compelled to move this Court in this writ petition. This writ petition was filed on 23.07.2001 and on the next date i.e. 24.07.2001 this Court directed the respondent to file counter affidavit within four weeks.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed in the instant case on behalf of the respondent Board duly sworn by its Law Officer. At para-graph-5, the deponent to the counter affidavit has stated that the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga was requested to send an inquiry report relating to the authenticity of the private students so that result of such students fulfilling the eligibility criteria could be published.

6. It was, perhaps, on the basis of such a statement that an order was passed by this Court on 04.12.2001 asking the School Examination Board to seek instructions and state as to whether any such report had actually been sent by the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga.

7. It appears that even after such order, no such specific answer has been given by the counsel for the School Examination Board stating that the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga had in fact submitted any report.

8. The stand taken by the respondent Board appears to be an excuse to evade the due process of Law on the one hand and also amounts to encouraging frustration amongst school going children who would be future citizens of India. The procedure, in relation to holding of such examinations is so explicit that even prior to students appearing in the examination, all care and caution is taken, all inquiries are made and the process of finally allowing these young children to appear is put to rest on the allotment of registration number, Roll number and the issuance of Admit Card. One fails to understand as to what further inquiry can be possibly conceived of and that too, after a young boy or a girl has already faced the figours of sitting in the examination.

9. This Court is of the opinion that such actions sought to be assailed in this writ application is extremely arbitrary and, in fact, it amounts to harassment by the State and that too, upon the extremely younger generation who would be future citizens of India.

10. Such a situation must be prevented. Once the basic preliminary procedures are conducted and a candidate is allowed to sit in the examination the State thereafter, cannot be allowed to withhold his/her results or mark sheet on the ground of further inquiry because all inquiries are deemed to have been completed once the student is allowed to sit in the examination and complete writing/appearing in all the subjects.

11. The facts in this case are also similar to the ones brought on record by the petitioner by Annexure-9 series.

12. It is also to be noted that the cross list (Annexure-6) also shows the petitioner to have passed in the second division.

13. In view of the what have been stated above, there is no justification in withholding her result any longer.

14. In that view of the matter the respondent Board is directed to immediately issue the necessary mark-sheet and declare her result.

This writ application is allowed.

There is no order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Jharkhand · 2002 Same Parties Mamta Kumari vs Bihar School Examination Board and ors. Same Subject Constitution Same Judge Tapan Sen, J. Acts & Sections Education Law

Constitution