REGIONAL OFFICER C.B.S.E. versus KU. SHEENA PEETHAMBARAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 275 · Decided: 01-09-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BRIJESH KUMAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

REGIONAL OFFICER C.B.S.E. 
A 
v. 
KU. SHEENA PEETHAMBARAN AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 1, 2003 
[BRIJESH KUMAR AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
B 
Central Board of Secondary Education examinatio1r-Bye-Laws 7.3 
and 10.2-Respondent being a regular student failed in class IX examinations 
and her examination form was not forwarded by the school to the Board-
Examinationform was forwarded as per interim directions in a writ petition, 
therefore it was disposed of being infructuous-Another writ petition was C 
filed against the proposed action of the board of not permitting her to 
appear in the examination-Permission to appear in the examination was 
granted by an interim order, however, declaration of result was to be 
subject to the final decision of the writ petition-High Court, disposed of the 
matter directing the Board to declare her result and issue fresh marks D 
sheet-On appeal Held, her case was covered by bye-law 7. 3 and not bye-
/aw 10.2 as she had not cleared class IX examination as a regular student, 
therefore, she could not be allowed to undertake examination for class X-
Interim order only allowed her to appear in the examination subject to final 
decision of the writ petition, therefore, validity of the examination was E 
liable to proper scrutiny as per the relevant bye-laws-Mere forwarding of 
form to the Board does not guarantee permission to undertake the 
examination-Condoning lapses or overlooking legal requirement on 
sympathetic considerations to be discouraged as it ultimately affects 
academic standards. 
Bye-Laws 16, 21 (i) & (ii) & 22 (v)-EligibilitytoappearasaPrivate 
Candidate-Respondent had failed in the class IX examination being a 
regular student-Held, ineligible as she did not falfill the conditions. 
F 
The school authorities withheld the class X examination admission 
form ofrespondent No. I, a regular student of the school, as she had not G 
cleared her class IX examination. A writ petition was filed and interim 
order allowing her to take part in the class X examination held by the 
Central Board of Secondary Education, was passed. The writ petition 
was rendered infructuous and disposed of as the school had already 
forwarded the form. She filed another writ petition when the Board H 
275 
276 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A informed her that she would not be permitted to appear in the 
examination. An interim order was passed allowing her to appear in the 
examination, however, the result was to be declared subject to decision 
of the writ petition. The High Court, rejecting the contention of the 
Board that the respondent No. I was not eligible to appear in the High 
B School (IX) examination, finally disposed of the writ petition directing 
the Board to declare her result and issue fresh marks-sheet. It relied 
on bye-law 10.2 of the Board Examination Bye-Laws as in its opinion 
the respondent possessed the minimum educational qualification of 
passing the class VIII examination two years ago. Hence this appeal by 
C the Board. 
D 
The appellant contended that bye-law 7.3, which made completion 
of a regular course of studies for class IX mandatory for admission 
to class X, was applicable instead of bye-law I 0.2 and that respondent 
No. 1 was also not a private candidate as per bye-law 16. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Respondent No. I failed to clear her class IX examination 
which is a necessary requirement as provided under the bye-laws of the 
E Board so as to be entitled to appear in the class X examination. Condoning 
the lapses or overlooking the legal requirements on consideration of mere 
sympathy factor does not solve the problem rather breeds more violation 
in the hope of being condoned. It disturbs the discipline of the system and 
ultimately adversely affects the academic standards.(285-E, F) 
F 
2.1. The High Court overlooked taking note of bye-law 7.3 and 
merely quoted the applicability of clause (a) of bye-law 10.2 and nothing 
about the applicability of the other clauses. It failed to consider that 
bye-law 10.2 will not apply to her but bye-law 7.3 would apply which 
made it necessary that she must have passed class IX as a regular 
G student before she could be allowed to undertake the examination for 
class X. (282-E, G, HJ 
2.2. Respondent No. 1 also did not fulfill conditions laid for private 
candidates, which further clarified the position that her case would 
H only be covered by bye-law 7.3 and not by bye-law 10.2. (283-A) 
REGIONAL OFFI

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