KUSUM LATA versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 359 · Decided: 31-07-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

KUSUM LATA 
A 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
JULY 31, 2002 
[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
B 
Education/Educational Institutions: 
Admission-Eligibility clause stipulating that a candidate should have 
passed the qualifYing examination with certain minimum aggregate marks-' . c 
Candidate obtained requisite marks in five subjects-Admission denied on the 
ground that requisite marks not obtained taking into account the additional 
subject-Held, the only reasonable interpretation having regard to the spirit 
of the clause providing for eligibility conditions as implicit is aggregate marks 
secured in those subjects which are necessary to pass the said examination D 
and not the marks secured in additional subject-Directions issued to admit 
appellants . 
. Appellant applied for admission in the Diploma Conrse in Education; 
she was admitted in the entrance test and qualified the same. When 
appellant appeared for interview she was told by the authorities that she E 
was ineligible to appear in the test having not secured the requisite marks 
in 1o+2 Examination of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE). 
Appellant submitted a letter issued by C.B.S.E. stating that to qualify 10+2 
Examination a student is required to obtain requisite marks in five subjects 
and. the sixth subject is an optional subject. Appellant had taken the stand F 
that having secured requisite aggregate marks in five subjects she became 
eligible to appear in the test. On denial of admission, appellant filed a writ 
petition which was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that she 
did not satisfy the minimum prescribed percentage of marks as per 
eligibility condition. Hence this appeal and the connected appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. When the eligibility clause stipulates that a candidate 
should have passed to+2 Examhation with at least 50% aggregate marks, 
it is implicit that the aggregate marks are required to he calculated keeping 
359 
G 
H 
360 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A in view only the subjects which are necessary to pass 10+2 Examination 
and not the marks of the additional subject which is not taken into account 
for passing the examination. This is the only reasonable interpretation 
having regard to the spirit of the clause providing for eligibility conditions. 
The relevant factor is to see what is necessary to pass 10+2 Examination 
B conducted by CBSE and on that basis decide whether a candidate fulfils 
or not the requirement of the eligibility clause. If seen from this 
perspective, the aggregate marks would have to be worked out having 
regard to the marks obtained in five subjects and not in the additional 
subject which is not taken into account for passing the examination. 
c 
[362-G, H; 363-A, BJ 
1.2. Only difference in the marks-sheet issued by the CBSE as 
compared to BSE Haryana is that it does not show tOtal after five subjects 
and in fact no total is shown. The relevant consideration is not the manner 
of issue of the marks-sheet or the different proforma which may be 
adopted by one Board or the other but to go into real object behind the 
D clause. There would have been no difficulty if the proforma of CBSE was 
similar to the one adopted by Haryana. In that eventuality it would not 
have been possible to decline admission to the appellants on the ground 
of not satisfying minimum prescribed percentage under the eligibility 
condition. This kind of approach would be arbitrary and discriminatory. 
E Thus, the interpretation placed by the High Court is hyper-technical and 
erroneous. Such an interpretation cannot be sustained. The appellants 
satisfy the eligibility stipulation and the respondents committed serious 
illegality in declining her admission. Respondents are directed to grant 
admission to the appellants in Diploma Course in Education. 
F 
G 
(364-G, H 365-A, B, C, DJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4468 of 
2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.10.2001 of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 7585 of 2001. 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 4469, 4470 of 2002. 
J. Dhankar, B.S. Mor, S.M. Hooda, S.R. Kalkal, Mahinder Singh Dahiya, 
Naresh Kaushik, S.C. Gupta, Ms. Shilpa Chohan, Ms. Lalitha Kaushik, D~. 
H Shushil Balwads, J.P. Dhanda, Ms. Raj Rani Dhanda, K.P. Singh, N.K. Roy, 
,J_ 
KUSUMLATA v. STATE [Y.K. SABHARWAL, J.] 
361 
Rajesh Singh and Devashish Bharuka for the appearing parties. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was deliver

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.