Failure of School to Scrutinize Documents Does Not Make Student Ineligible for Examinations: Punjab and Haryana HC

Failure of School to Scrutinize Documents Does Not Make Student Ineligible for Examinations: Punjab and Haryana HC
16.11.2021 | Education News | EduLegaL  | |
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Rohit Kapoor vs Central Board of Secondary Education  CWP No.18881 of 2021 – rejected claims of concealment and misrepresentation raised against the petitioner-student. The court held that the onus of scrutinizing and examining documents, right from the admission stage, lay with the school authorities and they had failed in the same. 
A bench consisting of Judge Sudhir Mittal held: 

…that the doctrine of waiver and acquiescence would apply in situations as the present one as there was no concealment or misrepresentation by the student.  
Annexure P-6 whereby the result of the petitioner has not been declared on the ground of being not eligible is quashed. Respondents No.1 & 2-CBSE is directed to declare the result of the petitioner earliest and in any case not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment/order. 

The petitioner gave his class 12 exam as the student of respondent no. 3 school. He completed his class 10 from Ludhiana Centre of Grameen Mukt Vidhyalayi Shiksha Sansthan in July 2018. Producing a class 10 certificate dated 20.09.2018, the petitioner took admission in the respondent’s school on the basis of migration cum transfer certificate in 2019. He cleared class 11 and was promoted to class 12 in 2020. He filled the form for class 12 examination and was assigned with an enrollment. He gave all the practical but while declaring the result he was declared as not eligible. Aggrieved, he filed a writ. 
The respondent through a written statement contented that the class 10th Board of the petitioner was not recognized by any authorized educational Board making him ineligible to take admission in class 11 of the school automatically debarring him from the class 12 examinations. The respondents further added that petitioner and his parents misrepresented the school from which he had passed class 10th board as the of National Institute of Open Schooling. Nevertheless, upon scrutiny, the petitioner was found to have passed out from another school not recognized by the any authorized educational Board. 
The court read the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and the Act provides that a student studying in an institution not recognized by the Central Board for Secondary Education (CBSE) shall not be admitted to any school affiliated to the CBSE. 
The court studying the facts of the case asserted that it was the duty of the respondent no. 1 & 2 to peruse the documents when the petitioner took admission in class 11 and the same had not been done by the respondents. Neither any action had been taken against the respondent no. 3 on being found that school wasn’t affiliated to any educational Board, nor was the petitioner’s ineligibility brought to any authority’s attention. Considering this lapse, the court concluded that there was no fraud or misrepresentation by the petitioner. Admitting that the respondent no.3 was from an unrecognized Board but since no action was taken against him at the initial stage by the respondent, the petitioner should not be made to suffer. 

It appears that the record of admission was not scrutinized at that stage and by this act, respondents No.1 & 2 have dis-entitled themselves to take any action detrimental to the interests of the petitioner. The allegation of misrepresentation is also not acceptable. 

In conclusion, the court quashed the claim of ineligibility of the petitioner and directed the CBSE to declare the results of the petitioner without any delay.
Rasmita Behera | Research Intern | EduLegaL
Swapna Iyer | Legal Editor | EduLegaL

Print Article

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *