LexBOARD OF HIGH SCHOOL & INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION, U.P. & OTHERS versus KUMARI CHITTRA SRIVASTAVA & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
266 BOARD OF HIGH SCHOOL & INTERMEDIATE EDUCA- A TION, U.P. & OTHERS ' v. KUMARI CHfITRA SRIVASTAVA & OTHERS November 20, 1969 (S. M. SIKRI AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.] N11tur..'ll Justice-Board of exa1nination C(lncelling result without ~,pportunity to carrdidate-Nofice if necessary. The respondent appeared in the Intermediate examination and passed, but the appeHant, instead of declaring her result, addressed a letter on May 24. 1961, to the Principal of the college in which the 'respondent ,.,,as studying, making enquiries regarding the respondent's attendance. AccQrding to the regulations. a candidate must attend 75% of the lectures gi~en in each subject. The Principal, by her letter dated June 14, 1961, replied that the respondent was at one time short of attendance, that she made good the shortage in all sub.iects except one, but the shortage in that subject was due to the fact that" lectUres were not given in that sub- ject the lecturer having been on leave. By iL< letter dated July 6, 1961, 1he appeUant can~lled the respondent's result and no reference was made to the Principal's Jetter in the appellant's Jetter. The respondent thereupon filed a writ petition challenging the appel- h1nt's order cancelling the result, and the High Court allowed the petition. Jn appeal to this Court, HELD : The appellant should have given an opportunity to the res· pondent to present her case and pursuade the appellant not to cancel her result. [269 CJ Whether a duty arises in a particular case to issue a show cause notice before inflicting a penalty does not depend on the authority's satisfaction that the person to be penalised has no defence but on the nature of the order proposed to be passe_d. In the pre·sent case, the impugned order imposed a penalty on the respondent as she was denied the fruits of her Jabour, and when passing it, the appellant was exercising quasi-judicial functions. [269 0-FJ CIVJL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1191 of 1967. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 23, 1962 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 592 of<4%',~; . . C. B. Aganva/a and 0. P. Rana, for the appellants. The respondent did not appear. B c D E F G The Judgment of the Court as delivered by H Sikri, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the .iudgment of the Allahabad High Court whereby it allowed the B c D E F G II U. P. BOARD I'. CHITRA SRIVASTAVA (Sikri, J.) 267 writ petition filed by the respondent, Kumari Chittra Srivastava, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, and quashed the impugned order but left it open to the Board of High School and lntenne- diate Education, hereinafter referred to. as the Board, to re- consider the case after giving the petitioner a chance to offer her explanation. The facts are not in dispute and the only question which arises is whether in the circumstances the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity to represent her case before the Board prior to the passing of the impugned order. The relevant facts in brief are these. The petitioner was in 1959-60 session a student of Basant Girls Intermediate College, Varanasi. She appeared at the Intermediate examination in 1960 hut failed. She then joined the Government Inter College for Girls at Jaunpur. Her name was sent up for Intermediate exa- mination to be held in l 961 by the Principal. She appeared in the examination but her result was not declared by the Board. On May 24, 1961, the Board addressed a letter to the Principal making enquiries regarding the attendance of the petitioner. According to the regulations framed by the Board no candidate can be presented for the Intermediate examination unless he/she has attended during two academical years 75% of lectures given in each subject in which the candidate is to be examined. In the case of a failed candidate, like the petitioner, the percentage 'hall be calculated for one academical year, but Regulation 5(xiii) enables the head of a recognised institution to condone the deficiency in certain cases. This regulation reads : "(xiii) The rule regarding minimum attendance shall be strictly enforced. The head of the recognised insti- tution may condone a deficiency in attendance of not more than: (a) ten days in the case of a candidate for the High School Examination; and (b) ten lectures (including periods of practical work, if any) given in ea
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.