Cwp No.6621 of 2014 Vs. Union of India and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1154639
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJul-01-2014
AppellantCwp No.6621 of 2014
RespondentUnion of India and Another
Excerpt:
cwp no.6621 of 2014 -1- in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh cwp no.6621 of 2014 date of decision:01.07.2014 ismat kaur ..petitioner versus union of india and another ..respondents coram : hon'ble mr.justice g.s.sandhawalia present : mr.d.s.sandhu, advocate for the petitioner. ms.jarnail kaur dhaliwal, advocate for respondent no.1. mr.naveen chopra, advocate for respondents no.2 and 3. mr.a.d.s.bal, advocate for respondent no.4. **** 1. to be referred to the reporters or not?. 2. whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. **** g.s.sandhawalia j. (oral) the present petition has been filed for directing the respondents to register the petitioner for all india sr.secondary school examination (aisse- 2013-14) and declare her result as also directing the respondents to provisionally admit the petitioner in the firs.year of 10+2 cours.for the academic session 2014- 15. this is second round of litigation inter se between the parties and the minor's career is at stake. the petitioner was earlier studying in strawberry world school, chandigarh, under the icse board and gone to usa on account of the fact that real brother of the father of the petitioner suffered acute heart problem. the father of the petitioner in order to take care of his brother had taken the petitioner and her minor brother also to usa and got them admitted in benjamin n. cardozo high school at usa where the petitioner passed class ix. on coming back to india, she could not get admission in the old school and applied for admission in carmel convent school, sector-9, chandigarh, in class x which thakral rajeev 2014.07.08 16:22 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh cwp no.6621 of 2014 -2- further applied to respondent-board seeking clarification as to whether they could admit the petitioner in their school as she has not studied chemisty and physics in class ix and did not have the record of fa's of class ix. the respondent-board wrote a letter dated 2.9.2013 in response to the letter dated 5.8.2013 to carmel convent school, sector-9, chandigarh informing that the competent authority of the board has considered the request for admission of the petitioner subject to the various conditions but admission was not granted by the said school which led to filing of cwp no.20623 of 2013. the writ petition was resisted by the carmel convent school and this court dismissed the writ petition and declined the relief on the ground that the petitioner had passed class ix from usa and the school at usa was not affiliated to the cbse board. the subjects taught in usa in class ix were totally different from the subjects taught in india. during the pendency of the litigation, the petitioner took admission in new public school, sector-18-b, chandigarh-respondent no.4, in october 2013 and was attending class x since 25.10.2013 which is clear from annexure p-10 and the school wrote a letter dated 24.2.2014 to the regional officer, c.b.s.e., sector-5, panchkula, haryana for permission for admission/uploading the data of petitioner for appearing for aisse-2014. the said permission has now been denied on 28.03.2014 by the competent authority of the board which has not allowed the request of the petitioner to appear for the said examination. the order appended as annexure r-11 with the reply reads as under: “in continuation to your letters.regarding on the subject cited above, in this connection, i am directed to inform you that the competent authority of the board has not considered your request for allowing miss ismat kaur to appear for aisse-2014. kindly inform to the candidate concerned accordingly.”. prior to the said order, the writ petition had been filed for the necessary relief for admission in the class xi as also for declaration of the class x result. thakral rajeev 2014.07.08 16:22 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh cwp no.6621 of 2014 -3- learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order passed is non-speaking and the writ is now being opposed only because the matter was earlier decided against the petitioner by this court in cwp no.20623 of 2013 decided on 10.12.2013. learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has opposed the writ petition on the ground that the matter has already been adjudicated upon. after hearing learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the considered opinion that the dispute earlier was regarding admission of the petitioner in carmel convent school, sector-9, chandigarh. the school did not admit the petitioner inspite of the letter dated 2.9.2013 issued by the board, though, the school itself had applied for necessary permission of the board. resultant effect of this litigation now is effecting the career of the petitioner at the initial stage of her life. she is left high and dry and has lost two years of her precious academic career in view of the stand taken by the board that she would have to be again admitted in class ix on account of the fact that class ix and x is an integrated class. there is no denial of the fact that undue hardship has been caused to the petitioner. however, this stalemate made has occurred due to negligence on the part of the petitioner's guardians also, as they proceeded in litigating and did not follow the appropriate procedure and at the appropriate stage did not bring to the notice of this court that she has already been admitted with respondent no.4-school provisionally and the said school thereafter had asked for permission of the respondent-board only on 28.12.2013 (annexure p-6).as per clause 7.3 of cbse board bye laws which provide for admission in class x, the chairman shall have the powers to allow change of school for better academic performance, medical reasons etc.to avoid undue hardship to the candidate(s).in case of all such admissions, the schools would obtain post facto approval of the board within one month of admission of the student. thakral rajeev 2014.07.08 16:22 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh cwp no.6621 of 2014 -4- as noticed above, unfortunately this process was not carried out by the school also at that point of time and to the deteriment of the petitioner-minor. the relevant clause 7.3 reads as under: “7.3 admission to class x as the syllabus prescribed at secondary level is of two years integrated course, no admission shall be taken in class x in a school shall be open only to such a student who: a) has completed a regular cours.of study for class ix from an institution affiliated to this board. b) has completed a regular cours.of study for class ix and has obtained minimum grade d in the five subjects (excluding the 6th additional subject) under scholastic area a as well as grades in subjects under scholastic area b under the continuous and comprehensive evaluation scheme in class ix examination conducted by an institution affiliated to this board and migrating from/within one city/state to another only on the transfer of the parent(s) or shifting of this families from one place to another, after procuring from the student the report book and the transfer certificate duly countersigned by the board; and c) a student who has completed a regular cours.of study for class ix and has passed class ix examination from an institution recognized by/affiliated to any recognized board in india can be admitted to a school affiliated to this board only on the transfer of the parent(s) or shifting of their families from parent(s) or shifting of their families from one place to another after procuring from the student the marksheet and the transfer certificate duly countersigned by the educational authorities of the board concerned. notwithstanding anything contained in the rules above, chairman shall have the powers to allow change of school for better academic performance, medical reasons etc.to avoid undue hardship to the candidate(s).in case of all such admissions the schools would obtain post facto approval of the board within one month of admission of the student.”. in such circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that thakral rajeev 2014.07.08 16:22 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh cwp no.6621 of 2014 -5- the chairman of the board should, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, re-examine the whole issue and take a fresh look as to how some benefit can be granted to the petitioner so that she could not loose two academic years and loss is to the minimum by exercising his powers under the bye laws. the petitioner shall file a detailed representation within a period of one week from today to the respondent-board and in pursuance to the above-noted observations, the chairman of the board shall take a decision on the representation after hearing the authorized person of the minor-petitioner. it is hoped that the chairman shall take a sympathetic approach while dealing with the said representation keeping in mind the observations of this court and history of this litigation as also the fact that the petitioner would unnecessarily be set back in her academic future permanently if the discretionary powers as noticed above are not exercised. in view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of. (g.s.sandhawalia) judge0107.2014 rajeev thakral rajeev 2014.07.08 16:22 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh
Judgment:

CWP No.6621 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6621 of 2014 Date of Decision:01.07.2014 Ismat Kaur ..Petitioner versus Union of India and another ..Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present : Mr.D.S.Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms.Jarnail Kaur Dhaliwal, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr.Naveen Chopra, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.

Mr.A.D.S.Bal, Advocate for respondent No.4.

**** 1.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?.

2.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.

**** G.S.SANDHAWALIA J.

(Oral) The present petition has been filed for directing the respondents to register the petitioner for All India Sr.Secondary School Examination (AISSE- 2013-14) and declare her result as also directing the respondents to provisionally admit the petitioner in the fiRs.year of 10+2 couRs.for the academic session 2014- 15.

This is second round of litigation inter se between the parties and the minor's career is at stake.

The petitioner was earlier studying in Strawberry World School, Chandigarh, under the ICSE Board and gone to USA on account of the fact that real brother of the father of the petitioner suffered acute heart problem.

The father of the petitioner in order to take care of his brother had taken the petitioner and her minor brother also to USA and got them admitted in Benjamin N.

Cardozo High School at USA where the petitioner passed Class IX.

On coming back to India, she could not get admission in the old school and applied for admission in Carmel Convent School, Sector-9, Chandigarh, in Class X which Thakral Rajeev 2014.07.08 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No.6621 of 2014 -2- further applied to respondent-Board seeking clarification as to whether they could admit the petitioner in their school as she has not studied Chemisty and Physics in Class IX and did not have the record of FA's of Class IX.

The respondent-Board wrote a letter dated 2.9.2013 in response to the letter dated 5.8.2013 to Carmel Convent School, Sector-9, Chandigarh informing that the Competent Authority of the Board has considered the request for admission of the petitioner subject to the various conditions but admission was not granted by the said school which led to filing of CWP No.20623 of 2013.

The writ petition was resisted by the Carmel Convent School and this Court dismissed the writ petition and declined the relief on the ground that the petitioner had passed class IX from USA and the school at USA was not affiliated to the CBSE Board.

The subjects taught in USA in class IX were totally different from the subjects taught in India.

During the pendency of the litigation, the petitioner took admission in New Public School, Sector-18-B, Chandigarh-respondent No.4, in October 2013 and was attending class X since 25.10.2013 which is clear from Annexure P-10 and the school wrote a letter dated 24.2.2014 to the Regional Officer, C.B.S.E., Sector-5, Panchkula, Haryana for permission for admission/uploading the data of petitioner for appearing for AISSE-2014.

The said permission has now been denied on 28.03.2014 by the Competent Authority of the Board which has not allowed the request of the petitioner to appear for the said examination.

The order appended as Annexure R-11 with the reply reads as under: “In continuation to your letteRs.regarding on the subject cited above, in this connection, I am directed to inform you that the Competent Authority of the Board has not considered your request for allowing Miss Ismat Kaur to appear for AISSE-2014.

Kindly inform to the candidate concerned accordingly.”

.

Prior to the said order, the writ petition had been filed for the necessary relief for admission in the Class XI as also for declaration of the Class X result.

Thakral Rajeev 2014.07.08 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No.6621 of 2014 -3- Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order passed is non-speaking and the writ is now being opposed only because the matter was earlier decided against the petitioner by this Court in CWP No.20623 of 2013 decided on 10.12.2013.

Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has opposed the writ petition on the ground that the matter has already been adjudicated upon.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the dispute earlier was regarding admission of the petitioner in Carmel Convent School, Sector-9, Chandigarh.

The school did not admit the petitioner inspite of the letter dated 2.9.2013 issued by the Board, though, the school itself had applied for necessary permission of the Board.

Resultant effect of this litigation now is effecting the career of the petitioner at the initial stage of her life.

She is left high and dry and has lost two years of her precious academic career in view of the stand taken by the Board that she would have to be again admitted in class IX on account of the fact that class IX and X is an integrated class.

There is no denial of the fact that undue hardship has been caused to the petitioner.

However, this stalemate made has occurred due to negligence on the part of the petitioner's guardians also, as they proceeded in litigating and did not follow the appropriate procedure and at the appropriate stage did not bring to the notice of this Court that she has already been admitted with respondent No.4-school provisionally and the said school thereafter had asked for permission of the respondent-board only on 28.12.2013 (Annexure P-6).As per clause 7.3 of CBSE Board bye laws which provide for admission in Class X, the Chairman shall have the powers to allow change of school for better academic performance, medical reasons etc.to avoid undue hardship to the candidate(s).In case of all such admissions, the schools would obtain post facto approval of the Board within one month of admission of the student.

Thakral Rajeev 2014.07.08 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No.6621 of 2014 -4- As noticed above, unfortunately this process was not carried out by the school also at that point of time and to the deteriment of the petitioner-minor.

The relevant clause 7.3 reads as under: “7.3 ADMISSION TO CLASS X As the syllabus prescribed at Secondary level is of two years integrated course, no admission shall be taken in class X in a school shall be open only to such a student who: a) has completed a regular couRs.of study for Class IX from an institution affiliated to this Board.

b) has completed a regular couRs.of study for Class IX and has obtained minimum Grade D in the five subjects (excluding the 6th additional subject) under Scholastic Area A as well as Grades in subjects under Scholastic Area B under the Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation Scheme in class IX examination conducted by an institution affiliated to this Board and migrating from/within one city/state to another only on the transfer of the parent(s) or shifting of this families from one place to another, after procuring from the student the Report Book and the Transfer Certificate duly countersigned by the Board; and c) a student who has completed a regular couRs.of study for class IX and has passed class IX examination from an institution recognized by/affiliated to any recognized Board in India can be admitted to a school affiliated to this Board only on the transfer of the parent(s) or shifting of their families from parent(s) or shifting of their families from one place to another after procuring from the student the marksheet and the Transfer Certificate duly countersigned by the Educational Authorities of the Board concerned.

Notwithstanding anything contained in the rules above, Chairman shall have the powers to allow change of school for better academic performance, medical reasons etc.to avoid undue hardship to the candidate(s).In case of all such admissions the schools would obtain post facto approval of the Board within one month of admission of the student.”

.

In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that Thakral Rajeev 2014.07.08 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No.6621 of 2014 -5- the Chairman of the Board should, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, re-examine the whole issue and take a fresh look as to how some benefit can be granted to the petitioner so that she could not loose two academic years and loss is to the minimum by exercising his powers under the bye laws.

The petitioner shall file a detailed representation within a period of one week from today to the respondent-Board and in pursuance to the above-noted observations, the Chairman of the Board shall take a decision on the representation after hearing the authorized person of the minor-petitioner.

It is hoped that the Chairman shall take a sympathetic approach while dealing with the said representation keeping in mind the observations of this Court and history of this litigation as also the fact that the petitioner would unnecessarily be set back in her academic future permanently if the discretionary powers as noticed above are not exercised.

In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of.

(G.S.SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE0107.2014 rajeev Thakral Rajeev 2014.07.08 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh