Punjab School Education Board and Another vs Sukhwinder Singh

N.K. Kapoor, J.—This appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 2.12.1988 whereby a direction was issued to the respondent-Board to declare the result of the petitioner forthwith and to issue the requisite certificate by 9.12.1988.

Sukhwinder Singh was a student of 10th Class in B.S.H. Arya High School, Sohana, District Ropar. His name was struck off from the school rolls on 33. 10.1987. Head Master of the School issued a certificate on 2.11.1987 to the effect that the school had no objection if he appears as a private candidate in matric examination which was to be held in March, 1988. Petitioner, thus, submitted his admission form as a private candidate on 9.11.1987 with the admission fee. He appeared as a private student but while declaring the result of matriculation examination in the gazette against his candidature/roll No, it was mentioned ''M.L.'', meaning thereby marks later. On this the petitioner drew an inference that he has been successful in the examination. His result was, however, not declared and so he approached this Court for the desired relief.

Writ petition was contested by the respondents primarily on the ground that Regulation 7 of the Punjab School Education Board (Matriculation Examination) Regulations, 1979, which reads as:-

"No person shall appear in the examination as a private candidate, if his name was on the rolls of a recognised institution at any time after thirtieth September, preceding the commencement of the examination."

It did not permit the petitioner from appearing as a private candidate. This way be procured the roll number by suppressing certain essential facts from the authorities and, thus, is not entitled for the relief sought.

Learned Single Judge on considering the matter and relying upon the view taken by the apex Court in Shri Krishnan Vs. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, and the decision of this Court in C.W.P. No. 6800 of 1988 Tejpreet Kaur v. P.S.E.B. and Anr. allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to declare the result of the petitioner on or before 9.12.1988.

Almost seven years have elapsed and as stated by the counsel for the respondent Sukhwinder Singh has been conferred a Degree of Master of Articles. However, the learned counsel for the appellants has argued that even if it be so, since the respondent was guilty of suppressing true facts from the authorities, the order of the learned Single Judge deserves to be reversed.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties for a while, we are of the view that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Facts arc not in dispute i.e. respondent who was a regular student of 10th Class in B.S.H. Arya High School, Sohana was taken off the rolls on account of his prolonged illness. So, he could not appear as a regular student. Thus, roll number earlier issued by the Board had no value. Precisely for this reason the Head Master of the School issued a certificate on 2.1.1987 that the School authorities have no objection if the respondent appears as a private candidate in matric examination. It is not the case of the appellant that respondent appeared under two different roll numbers. His only objection is that he did not disclose submission of his form for admission as a regular student. It can be termed to be an omission calling for no serious inference. Similarly, the appellant cannot derive much benefit from Regulation 7 reproduced above for the reason that in the instant case respondent''s name was struck off from the school roll on 31.10.1987. Precisely for this reason, he applied as a private student with late admission fee.

We, accordingly, find no infirmity in the well considered order of the learned Single-Judge.