Kamili Srinivas vs Board of Intermediate Education

P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.—This writ petition is filed questioning the Memo dated 29-1-1988 issued by the Board of Intermediate Education. By the said communication, the Board informed the petitioner that his request for award of a division instead of compartmental pass certificate cannot be complied with. The reason given in the communication is that the petitioner appeared for Mathematics Paper-I along with all the second year papers in October, 1987. Attention of the petitioner was drawn to Regulation (ix)(b)(1) which says:

"A candidate who has failed in one or more papers of second year examination and passed in all the papers of first year examination for securing a division, he has to take all the papers of second year examination only. His result will be declared by taking the marks of first year examination (already passed) and his performance in the latest examination of second year. Only the latest performance will hold good cancelling the earlier performance in second year Intermediate Public Examination."

Aggrieved by the said orders, the present writ petition is filed.

The petitioner appeared for the first year Intermediate examination in March, 1986. He failed in Chemistry subject. In October, 1986 he appeared in all the subjects and came out successful. Coming to second year, he failed in one of the subjects i.e., Chemistry in the examination held in March, 1987. Then, in October 1987, he appeared for the examination in all the subjects of second year and in addition thereto, he took the examination of first year Mathematics paper with a view to improve his performance.

It is clear from the impugned memo issued by the Board of Intermediate Education that the petitioner was not placed in first division although he got more than 60% of marks, merely for the reason that he appeared for the first year Mathematics examination for the purpose of improvement alongwith all the second year subjects. It is claimed by the petitioner that even if the marks awarded for the Mathematics paper of the first year examination held in October, 1987 is ignored and marks secured in October, 1986 are taken into account, still the petitioner will be entitled for the first division.

We do not find anything in the rules cited by the Intermediate Board which point to the conclusion that if a student appears for one of the first year subjects for the purpose of improvement alongwith all the second year subjects, he forfeits the right to be placed in the first division. The expression "he has to take all the papers of the second year examination only" can only be construed to mean that in order to secure a division, he has to take all the papers of second year together at a time. Even if it is construed to mean that he cannot take the examination in any of the subjects of the first year, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of being placed in a division merely because he has appeared again in Mathematics subject of the first year. At best, the result of October, 1987 examination as far as Mathematics subject of first year is concerned, is liable to be ignored while considering his entitlement for being placed in a division. The rationale for the strict or literal construction of the Rule that is sought to be placed by the Board has not been spelt out in the counter. We do not think that it is the intendment of the rule that a division cannot be allotted to a student merely because he sat for an examination in the subject of first year while taking the second year examination in all the subjects once again. We, therefore, direct that the petitioner''s claim for allotment of first division shall be considered without reference to the impugned memo and in the light of the observations made above. If the petitioner is entitled to be placed in the first division on the basis of the marks obtained in the second year subjects at the examination held in October, 1987 and the first year subjects at the examination held in 1986, he will be entitled to be placed in the first division.

The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs.

We are constrained to observe that the relevant Regulations of the Board are couched in vague and ambiguous language, giving rise to various interpretations and unnecessary controversies. It is high time that the Intermediate Board undertakes the task of simplifying and recasting the language of the Regulations so as to make them intelligible and clear to the students for whom the Regulations are framed.