P.S. Niranjan Vs. Controller of Examinations, Osmania University and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah. lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. -- maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. therefore, the term such board will have to mean a divisional board of or the level of divisional board or the state board. the divisional board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. the state board advises the state government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. the cantonment board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other board or body under the cantonments act discharging any such duties. the duties of the cantonment board are laid down in section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. the cantonment board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. therefore, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. that being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the act. for the reasons state above, the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. - 3. petitioner, a student of bachelor of engineering in the second respondent college, is said to have completed the course and appeared for examinations conducted by the university during april/may 2006. when results were announced, he was declared to have failed in 'mechanics of materials, machine design, metrology and instrumentation, operation research, and management information system'.dissatisfied with the marks he secured in the aforesaid subjects, he is said to have applied for revaluation of those answer scripts.orderr. subhash reddy, j.1. this writ petition has been filed seeking mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not sending the answer scripts of the petitioner of b.e (mechanical) examination for revaluation to a third valuer as illegal and arbitrary and a direction to the respondents to send the said answer sheets to a third valuer for revaluation.2. heard learned counsel for the petitioner and mr. deepak bhattacharjee, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.3. petitioner, a student of bachelor of engineering in the second respondent college, is said to have completed the course and appeared for examinations conducted by the university during april/may 2006. when results were announced, he was declared to have failed in 'mechanics of materials, machine design, metrology and instrumentation, operation research, and management information system'. dissatisfied with the marks he secured in the aforesaid subjects, he is said to have applied for revaluation of those answer scripts. pursuant thereto, respondents are said to have revalued the petitioner's answer scripts in the aforesaid subjects and informed him that there is no change in the marks awarded to him earlier.4. the registrar of the first respondent-university has filed counter affidavit stating that pursuant to the request of the petitioner, his answer scripts relating to 'mechanics of materials, machine design, metrology and instrumentation, operation research, and management information systems were revalued by two independent valuers separately and no change was found in the result, which was originally declared. it is stated that there is no provision for further revaluation as per the existing rules.5. it is to be seen that pursuant to the request of the petitioner, his answer scripts relating to the aforesaid five subjects were revalued by two independent valuers separately, wherein no change was found in the result which was initially declared. merely because there is no change in the result even after revaluation by two independent valuers, petitioner cannot seek a direction to the respondents to send his answer scripts to a third valuer, more so, when there is no such provision in the academic regulations framed by the university in this regard. in the absence of any such regulation, no direction as sought for can be given.6. the writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. no order as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

R. Subhash Reddy, J.

1. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not sending the answer scripts of the petitioner of B.E (Mechanical) examination for revaluation to a third valuer as illegal and arbitrary and a direction to the respondents to send the said answer sheets to a third valuer for revaluation.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. Petitioner, a student of Bachelor of Engineering in the second respondent college, is said to have completed the course and appeared for examinations conducted by the university during April/May 2006. When results were announced, he was declared to have failed in 'Mechanics of Materials, Machine Design, Metrology and Instrumentation, Operation Research, and Management Information System'. Dissatisfied with the marks he secured in the aforesaid subjects, he is said to have applied for revaluation of those answer scripts. Pursuant thereto, respondents are said to have revalued the petitioner's answer scripts in the aforesaid subjects and informed him that there is no change in the marks awarded to him earlier.

4. The Registrar of the first respondent-university has filed counter affidavit stating that pursuant to the request of the petitioner, his answer scripts relating to 'Mechanics of Materials, Machine Design, Metrology and Instrumentation, Operation Research, and Management Information Systems were revalued by two independent valuers separately and no change was found in the result, which was originally declared. It is stated that there is no provision for further revaluation as per the existing rules.

5. It is to be seen that pursuant to the request of the petitioner, his answer scripts relating to the aforesaid five subjects were revalued by two independent valuers separately, wherein no change was found in the result which was initially declared. Merely because there is no change in the result even after revaluation by two independent valuers, petitioner cannot seek a direction to the respondents to send his answer scripts to a third valuer, more so, when there is no such provision in the academic regulations framed by the university in this regard. In the absence of any such regulation, no direction as sought for can be given.

6. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.