A.S. Naidu, J.@mdashThe petitioner, a minor, through his father guardian has approached the portals of this Court being aggrieved by the unilateral action of the Board of Secondary Education, Otissa (in short ''the Board''), cancelling his candidature for appearing at the Animal H. S. C. Examination, 2001.
2. Bereft of all unnecessary details, the relevant facts of the case are :
The petitioner after taking admission at R. D. High School, Kandhanayagarh in the district of Nayagarh (opp. party No. 4''s school) prosecuted his studies upto Class-X and thereafter filled up the forms for appearing at the Annual H. S. C. Examination, 2000 conducted by the Board. The Board authorities after scrutinising the application and on being satisfied that the petitioner has complied with all paraphernalias and has attended requisite number of classes, permitted him to appear at the Annual H.S.C. Examination, 2000. Unfortunately, however, the petitioner tailed in the said Examination. The guardian of the petitioner thought it just and prudent to readmit the petitioner in Class-X so as to enable him to appear at the H.S.C. Examination, 2001. He applied for re-admission at R. D. High School, where he was continuing his studies. The Headmaster, however, expressed his inability to readmit the petitioner due to certain internal problem of the school. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application bcfbte the Bhramarbara Vidyapitha (opp. party No, 3''s School) seeking admission''in Class-X. The Headmaster of the said institution sought permission from the concerned Inspector of Schools, Khurda Circle, who by his order dated 1-7-2000 permitted the petitioner to take admission at Bhramarbara Vidyapitha, Tamando subject to verification of genuineness of the Transfer Certificate issued by the R. D. High School. Thereafter, the Headmastet of opp. party No. 3''s school permitted the petitioner to take admission in Class-X, The petitioner prosecuted his studies in the said school and after completion of the academic Session and after being sent up in the Test Examination to appear at the Annual Examination, filled up forms for appearing at the Annual H.S.C. Examination 2001. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner received the impugned order Annexure-6 intimating that in accordance with the instructions issued by the Board, his candidature for Annual H.S.C. Examination, 2001 has been cancelled. The order of the Board cancelling the candidature of the petitioner for the Annual H.S.C. Examination, 2001 is impugned in this writ application.
3. It is pertinent to mention here that the H.S.C. Examination, 2001 was scheduled to be held on 15-3-2001 and the cancellation order was communicated to the petitioner on 3-3-2001. In view of the emergent situation, and taking into consideration the submissions that the order of cancellation of the candidature has been passed unilaterally without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to show cause, this court by its order dated 13-3-2001 directed the Board authorities to provisionally permit the petitioner to appear at the Annual H.S.C. Examination, 2001. It was made clear that the result of the petitioner shall not be published without leave of this Court.
4. After receiving notice, the Board has entered appearance and filed a preliminary counter affidavit repudiating the allegations made in the writ application mainly on two grounds:
(i) In view of Article 272 of the Orissa Education Code, the petitioner should not have taken readmission in a different High School and thus, his candidature from opp. party No. 3''s school cannot be accepted.
(ii) There being certain discrepancy in the Transfer Certificate submitted by the petitioner and the original Transfer Certificate which is available on records, it is presumed that the petitioner has taken admission in opp. party No. 3''s school and filled up the form for the Annual H.S.C. Examination as a regular candidate, by suppressing the fact that he has failed in the earlier Examination.
5. To appreciate the submissions made by the parties, it is necessary to refer to some of the provisions of the Regulations of the Board. Chapter-X of the Board''s Regulation under Clauses-6(a) and (b) defines Regular and Ex-Regular candidates, For sake of brevity, Clauses (a) and (b) of the Regulation-6 are quoted herein below :
"6. The High School Certificate Examination shall be open to the following categories of candidates,
(a) Regular candidate, that is, candidates who have satisfactorily prosecuted a regular course of study in classes 9 and 10 at one or more High Schools recognised by the Board and who have been duly sent up for the Examination by the head of the institution last attended,
(b) Ex-regular candidates, that is, candidates who have prosecuted a regular course of study in one or more recognised High Schools in Classes 9 and 10 and who were admitted to an examination of a previous year but (i) could not appear, or (ii) having appeared failed at the examination. (This provision will be applicable in case of candidates appearing in 1984 and onwards)
XX XX XX
Clause-21 of the Regulation reads as follows :
"21. Application forms of all regular candidates should contain certificates of attendance stating that the candidate has attended school for not less than 66% of the working days in each of the classes 9 and 10 separately. This attendance for class 10 will be based on classes held till the test examination.
(a) The minimum age limit for regular candidates to appear at the High School Certificate Examination, 1992 and onwards shall not be less than fourteen years.
NOTE : (A student who has studied in more than one school in classes 9 and 10 should have his attendance counted on the basis of the combined attendance in the schools attended.)
A cumulative reading of the provisions quoted supra clearly leads to an irresistable conclusion that a Regular candidate and/or Ex-regular candidate can prosecute the regular study in one or more High Schools recognised by the Board. This reasoning gets further fortified from perusal of the Note to Clause-21 which also stipulates that a student can prosecute his studies in classes 9 and 10 in one or more High Schools.
The Board, however, relies upon Article 272 of the Orissa Education Code in support of the stand that a student cannot take admission in another school. Article 272 reads as follows :
"272 : Re-admission after failure to Matriculate :
No fee for admission should be levied from a student who has failed (or who, having paid his admission fee, has been prevented by sickness or other cause from appearing) at the next preceding matriculation examination, if he applies for admission to the Government School from which he was sent up within a week of the date from which the session for such students begins. The Managing Committees of other recognised Higb Schools may adopt a similar rule.
NOTE : (1) The session for students who have failed at the Annual Examination begins with the re-opening of their respective schools affer the summer vacation, or a week after the publication of the results of the examination, whichever is later. No such student who re-joins school later than August 1st, may be sent up for the annual matriculation examination of the following year unless, the period is extended by the Inspector oh grounds proved to be satisfaction or in case of late publication of the result a later date is notified by the Director.
(2) Students who have failed at the Supplementary Matriculation Examination and if they wish to appear at the Matriculation Examination, in the following year, they must rejoin a school within a week from the date of publication of the results. This period can only be extended by an Inspector, if he is satis fied that it is or was absolutely impossible for. a pupil to rejoin within the prescribed time."
6. I am constrained to observe that the contention of the opp. parties does not find support from Article 272 inasmuch as the said Article relates to collection of admission fees from the students who have failed in Matriculation Examination. On the other hand, Clause (2) of Article 272, quoted supra, clearly reveals that the students who have failed in supplementary Matriculation Examination, which is equivalent to H. S. C. Examination, if they wish to appear at the Matriculation Examination in the following year, they must rejoin a school within a week from the date of publication of result. The use of the words ''a school'' is very significant. The Legislature in its wisdom has choosen the word V and not ''the''. If the argument advanced by the Board is to be accepted, then the language should have been ''the school'' and not ''a school''. The word ''the'' is used before nouns, with a specifying of particularising effect opposed to the indefinite or generalising force of ''a'' or ''an''. It determines what particular thing is meant, that is, what particular thing we are to assume to be meant. The word ''the'' would'' therefore, refer to a specified and/or pre-fixed school, whereas ''a'' connotes any school.
The Golden. Rule of interpretation of any statute mandates that in the first instance, true grammatical sense of the word is to be adhered to. The language used in the Act construing it with reference to the object for achieving which the Legislature has used the language has to be interpreted in its ordinary grammatical sense. One has to keep in mind the intention of the Legislature expressed in its language.
7. The sole purpose for which the Board is constituted is to conduct the Examination and to promote the interest of education and that of the studying students. Rules and Regula tions framed by such educational bodies like the Board are also designed to serve the purpose of promotion of education. The purpose behind the Orissa Education Code and/or Board''s Regulation is to ensure that the candidates seeking to appear H.S.C. Examination must have prosecuted the study in one or more recognised school for a stipulated period. Any interpretation to the contrary will amount to frustrate the purpose for which the Board is created.
At the cost of repetition, it is once again reiterated that the petitioner had completed the course and was permitted to appear the H. S. C. Examination, in the year 2000. Having failed in the said Examination, in his own interest, he has prosecuted/repeated the study for one more year from a school which is also recognised by the Board and has filled up the form for appearing the Examination.
8. Mr. B. k. Das, learned counsel for the Board totally failed to point out any provision under the Regulations or under the Orissa Education Code which prohibits re-admissson in Class-X of a student who has appeared H. S. C. Examination once and failed. At the other hand, as would be evident from different provisions of the Regulation, a student who has appeared and failed in the H. S. C. Examination, may appear in the H.S.C. Examination in the next year or any other year, in view of the fact that he has successfully completed the course from a recognised school and is found eligible to appear the H.S.C. Examination. Thus, the objection raised by the Board appears to be un-jusitified and is also otherwise contrary to the provisions of the Orissa Education Act and Code. It is further stated that if a student who has failed in Supplementary Examination, is permitted to take admission in any school, there is no reasonable nexus, in preventing a student who has failed in the Annual Examination. The stand taken by the Board that a student who has appeared but failed in Annual Examination can only take admission in the same school, is not supported by any of the provisions of the Act and is not only contrary to the law but also otherwise not tenable.
9. The second ground taken by the Board for cancelling the candidature of the petitioner is that there are certain discrepancies in the Transfer Certificate produced by the petitioner and the Transfer Certificate available on record. To be more specific, the Transfer Certificate produced by the petitioner which is filed as Annexure-B to, the counter affidavit reveals that Clause-9 of the same has not been filled up whereas according to the Board, the Transfer Certificate which is retained in the school reveals that there is a remark against Clause-9 i. e. "appeared the A.H.S.C. Examination, 2000, got plucked." No show cause was issued nor any opportunity was accorded to the petitioner to explain the said discrepancy.
10. Be that as it may, it is not Board''s case that the Transfer Certificate which was produced by the petitioner was not issued by the Headmaster of opp. party No.4''s school. Rather, both, the office copy as well as the copy produced by the petitioner is one and same. It is not the case of the Board that the petitioner has inserted some facts in the Transfer Certificate produced by him. On the other hand, the Transfer Certificate produced by the petitioner reveals that Clause-9 has been kept blank, whereas Clause-9 of office copy is filled up. Office copy is not in possession of the petitioner nor the petitioner is the author of the Transfer Certificate. The petitioner has produced the certificate issued to him. The author of the certificate can only explain the discrepancy, if any. Before casting any stigma on the petitioner, the authorities should have followed the principles of natural justice and equity. In any view of the matter, the omission of the words "appeared the A.H.S.C. Examination, 2000, got plucked" in the Transfer Certificate produced by the petitioner, has absolutely no relevancy. Admittedly, the petitioner appeared 2000 H.S.C. Examination, and failed and only thereafter, he has taken re-admission after obtaining necessary permission from the Inspector of Schools.
11. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the. petitioner has cited a decision in the case of Amarjeet Jeena v. Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa and Ors. 1998(II) O.L.R. 629. Relying upon several decisions, it has been held by this Court in the aforesaid judgment :
"No doubt educational bodies have the exclusive , right to regulate the system of education, admission of students, holding of examinations, maintenance of proper standard of education, but in the process of regulating admission into any course or examination these bodies cannot unreasonably restrict or curtail the opportunities to receive education."
Admittedly, the petitioner had appeared in the H.S.C. Examination once and having failed he could have appeared as an Ex-regulat candidate as stipulated in Clause-6 (b) of the Regulation again and again. However, the petitioner preferred to prosecute his studies one year more by taking readmission in ''a'' recognised School, after obtaining permission from the Inspector of Schools and has filled up the form for appearing the Examination. Thus, no prejudice whatsoever would be caused, if the petitioner is permitted to appear the Examination and his results ate declared m accordance with the performance of the petitioner.
Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Board in support of his submission, has relied upon an unreported judgment of this Court in the case of Jitendra Kumar Behera v. Board of Secondary Education, Orissa and Anr., (O. J. C. No. 11569/1997). The ratio of the said decision is completely different inasmuch as to take admission into the school within the stipulated period, the date mentioned in the Transfer Certificate was changed from 16-1-94 to 16-1-1995. This Court held that as the petitioner got himself admitted by tampering the date and the admission itself is invalid, the Board was justified in not publishing the result. The facts of the present case is completely different. The ratio of the said case is not applicable to the present one.
12. In view of the discussions made above, I hold that the order of cancellation of the candidature of the petitioner to appear at the Annual H. S. C. Examination, 2001 is not justifiable in the eye of law and the said order dated 3-3-2001 (Annexure-6) is quashed. In view of the fact that the petitioner has already appeared at the Annual H.S. C. Examination, 2001, the opp. parties shall do well to publish his result within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Accordingly, the writ application is allowed. No costs.
13. Writ application allowed.
