BOARD OF SCHOOL EDUCATION HARYANA versus ARUN RATHI AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 1 S.C.R. 741 · Decided: 09-02-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-+ ' 
BOARD OF SCHOOL EDUCATION HARYANA 
A 
v. 
ARUN RATHI AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 9, 1994 
(M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, CJ. AND S.C. AGRAWAL, J.] 
B 
Education: School educatiort-Haryana Senior Secondary Certificate 
Examination Regulations 1990: Regulation 26-Grace mar~ for passing--
Award of 1% of aggregate of marks-£xtending such concession to students C 
for earning compartment-Validity of. 
Regulation 26 of the Haryana Senior Secondary Certificate Examina-
tion Regulations, 1990 provided for award of 1 % of aggregate of marks as 
grace marks to enable such students to pass the examination. However, 
this concession was not extended to enable students to eam compartment. D 
Following tile direction of the High Court in Anil Kumar v. Board of 
School Education, Haryana, that the benefit of grace marks be given to 
students to eam compartment, the Board proposed an amendment and 
forwarded it to the State Government for approval. 
In the meantime, a Full Bench of the High Court in Meenakshi 
Shanna v. The Board of Education Haryana & Ors., held that grace marks 
could be awarded only to the extent of the total marks in the subject(s) 
alone in which the candidate reappeared. It also negatived the challenge 
E 
to Regulation 26. Thereafter the Board in its meeting held on 23.4.1993 p 
decided that the result of the Examination held in March 1993 would be 
declared giving the benefit of 1 % grace marks to students only to pass the 
examination and not to earn compartment. 
The respondents filed Writ Petitions before the High Court contend-
ing that the right that had accrued to the students could not be permitted G 
to be taken away by giving retrospective effect to the regulation. The High 
Court allowed the Petitions. The Board came in appeal. On the question 
whether a candidate for the Haryana Senior Secondary Certificate Ex-
amination is entitled to the award of grace marks so as to enable him to 
earn compartment; 
H 
741 
.742 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
B 
HELD: 1.1. The High Court was in error in interfering with the 
decision taken by the Board at its meeting held on April 23, 1993, to enforce 
Regulation 26(b), as originally framed, with effect from the Senior Secon· 
dary Certificate Examination March, 1993 and to deny to the respondents 
the benefit of grace marks to earn compartment. (752-E, F] 
1.2. Prior to April 23, 1993 the Board had been following the law as 
laid down by the High Court in Anil Kumar's case but on April 23, 1993 in 
accordance with the subsequent decision of the Full Bench in Meenakhsi 
C Shanna's case the Board decided to enforce Regulation 26(b), as originally 
framed, with effect from the Senior Secondary Certificate Examination 
March, 1993. There was no amendment in Regulation 26(b) at any stage 
because the approval of the State Government to the amendment proposed 
by the Board in the said Regulation after Anil Kumar's case had not been 
received by the Board till April 23, 1993 and, therefore, there is no question 
D 
of the Board having changed the rules with retrospective effect on April 
23, 1993. (750-F·G·H, 751-A] 
E 
F 
G 
1.3. It cannot be said that the respondents had acquired any right to 
award of grace marks to earn compartment prior to the decision of the 
Board dated April 23, 1993 and, therefore, there is no question of depriva-
tion of any right which had vested in the '·respondents. Nor can the 
principle of estoppel be invoked to preclude the Board from enforcing the 
provisions of Regulation 26(b). (751-A-B] 
Mennakshi Shanna v. The Board of School Education Haryana & Ors., 
C.W.P. No. 1803 of 1993 decided on July 21, 1992 by the Punjab & Haryana 
High Court, approved & explained. 
Punjab University, Chandigarh v. Shri Sunder Singh, (1984) 3 S.C.R. 
31, approved. 
Anil Kumar v. Board of Schon! Education, Haryana, Civil Misc. No. 
6963 of 1990 and C.W.P. No. 9164 ot 1990 decided on August 18, 1990 by 
the Punjab & Haryana High Court, disapproved. 
Naresh Shoshi v. Punjab School Education Board, C.W.P. No. 9760 of 
1989 decided by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana; Vishal Kumar v. 
H State of Haryana & Ors., Civil Writ Petition No. 14021of1990 decided on 
\ 
BOARDOFSCHOOLEDU. v. ARUNRATHI[AGRAWAL,J.) 
743 
December 3, 1991 by the Punjab & Haryana High Court; Shri Raj Kumar A 
& Ors. v. State Board of Technical Education, Punjab, Chandigarh, (1990-2 
(XCVIII) P.L.R.179 andAnita Devi':". State of Haryana, (1993) 2104 P.L
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.