AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Chockalingam, J.—Mr. S.P. Prabhakaran, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for respondents.
The prayer in the writ petition is for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent in
connection with Na.Ka.No.313380/H.1 dated 05.7.2004 and quash the same and to direct the respondents to follow the method of conducting
one examination per day for Matriculation Students appearing for arrear subjects.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the affidavit filed in support of
the petition.
It is seen from the averments made in the petition and the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the son of the petitioner
appeared for the Matriculation Examinations in the month of April 2004 and due to his ill-health, he could not prepare for the examinations and
hence, he failed in three subjects. Subsequently, he appeared in the supplementary examination held in June - July 2004 and then also, he failed in
two papers. Therefore, he applied to write the supplementary Examination to be held in September - October 2004. The petitioner, on coming to
know that the students appearing for the supplementary examination have to attend the examinations in both the sessions, namely, morning as well
as in the afternoon on the same day, gave a representation dated 14.6.2004 to the second respondent requesting the respondents to conduct the
supplementary examinations, conducted in September - October every year, one paper per day as it is conducted for regular candidates for which
the second respondent sent a reply rejecting the representation of the petitioner stating that it will not be possible for the Government to conduct
the examinations for a long period in order to avoid shortage of attendance for the regular students in the respective schools.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention, would submit that while allowing the regular students to write one paper per day,
directing the students appearing for supplementary examination to write two papers per day would be violative of the Constitutional rights and it is
nothing but discrimination made to the students appearing for supplementary examination and, therefore, the order of the second respondent dated
05.7.2004 has to be set aside.
Needless to say that the conduct of the examination is to test the capacity of the students writing the examinations. Directing the students
appearing for the supplementary examinations, to write two papers per day would not only cause inconvenience and overburden on them, but also
would keep the students under mental pressure, and under those pressure and the tension that would prevail during the interval of the two
examinations which would take place in the morning and afternoon, their capacity and efficiency cannot be properly tested. While the regular
students are allowed to write one paper per day, without compelling reasons, the students appearing for the supplementary examinations cannot be
directed to write two papers per day; but, the reasons adduced by the respondents for doing so cannot be accepted. In such circumstances, the
order passed by the second respondent is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the same is quashed. The respondents are directed to conduct the
supplementary examination also in the same manner as it is conducted for the regular students. It is made clear that the order above would not
affect any examinations already held. The respondents can take this as a guidance to be followed in future.
Hence, this writ Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.
Consequently W.P.M.P.No. 31344 of 2004 is closed.