P.B. Majmudar, J.@mdashRule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. Shri Anand Parchure, the learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Shri Anand Jaiswal, the learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of the respondent No.3.
2. The petitioner is a student. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed that the decision of the respondent No.1 holding the petitioner not eligible for science stream and that she is not entitled to appear for 12th standard Board Examination in Science Stream, may be set aside and the petitioner may be permitted to appear for Board Examination of 12th standard in Science Stream.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that on the basis of admission form, which she submitted, she was enrolled in standard XI in the Science Stream by the respondent No.3College. She completed her 11th standard in the college and now when she is about to appear for standard 12th Board Examination, the Board has not accepted her examination form on the ground that the petitioner is not qualified to be admitted in the Science Stream.
4. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that if the College has committed mistake in enrolling the petitioner in Science Stream in 11th standard, the petitioner should not be allowed to suffer. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the College has also issued a certificate that the petitioner is a bona fide student of Science Stream on 30th July, 2011.
5. We have heard both the sides at length and in our view no relief can be given to the petitioner as prayed for in the petition. During the course of hearing, it is pointed to the Court that even though the petitioner had secured less than 40 percentage of marks in 10th Standard, while applying for admission in 11th standard in the Science stream, in her application, she has falsely mentioned the percentage as 42 per cent. The eligibility criteria to enroll the students in the Science stream in 11th standard is 40 per cent. The petitioner had secured 38.5 per cent, yet in her application she has mentioned 42 per cent obtained in the 10th standard examination.
6. In a given case, if it is found that the institution negligently admitted the student and if such student has practically completed the course, the Court may, on sympathetic view, permit the student to appear as an exceptional case for the examination. However, the factual aspect in the present case is different. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.3College has pointed out that the college was misguided at the time of admitting the petitioner in 11th standard in Science Stream as in her application form, she had stated that she has obtained 42 per cent of marks in the last examination. The said form is placed on record with the reply as AnnexureR31 by the College. It is pointed out to the Court that the requirement for admitting such student in the Science Stream is that he or she should have minimum 40 per cent of marks in terms of Regulation 79(16) of the Rules. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also fairly submits that such requirement is there and unless the student is having 40 per cent of marks, such student cannot be enrolled in the Science Stream. Along with the admission form, the petitioner has also attached Grade Sheet wherein in the last examination i.e. Board Examination of 10th standard, in Science subject, the petitioner has obtained DGrade. It is pointed out to the Court that DGrade is given to the student who has secured marks up to 40 per cent, meaning thereby that the petitioner wanted to convey to the institution that she has secured marks which are required for the purposes of enrolling in the Science stream even though admittedly she had secured 38.5 per cent and was not eligible to get herself admitted in the Science stream.
7. It is not in dispute that in the instant case, the petitioner has secured 38.5 per cent marks in 10th standard in Science Stream i.e. less than 40 per cent. In that view of the matter, she was not eligible to get admission. It is required to be noted that in a given case, in spite of correct facts stated in the admission form, if the institution admits such student, the Court may show sympathy and direct the Board to process the examination form as no student should be allowed to suffer for the mistake or negligence on the part of the institution.
8. From the facts of the case, which we have pointed out above, the petitioner herself has stated in her admission form that in her last examination i.e. 10th standard Board Examination, she has secured 42 per cent of marks. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.3College, therefore, submits that at that time, there was no reason for the college to doubt the said statement. Since the petitioner herself has resorted to falsehood in getting admission, no equity can be shown in favour of the petitioner. By enrolling the student, a genuine student might have not secured admission as the seats are limited. Even if the management in this case can be said to be negligent in not verifying the marks lateron and allowed the petitioner for admission in 11th standard, that itself is not a ground by which any equity can be shown in favour of the student as it is not in dispute that the petitioner has secured admission by making false statement regarding the percentage of marks.
9. In the matter of education and academic field, the powers of the Court are very limited. Even in a given case, before recommending the institution to consider the case of the student as a special case, Court is also required to consider the conduct of the petitioner. If the student has secured admission on the basis of misrepresentation and by making wrong statement, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not assist such a petitioner. It is no doubt true that the institution was also required to make appropriate scrutiny lateron by asking the student to submit original mark sheet, the institution also remained careless for the reasons best known to it. However, in view of what is stated above, this is not a case in which any relief can be given to the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the College should have also verified the marks of the petitioner lateron and should not have enrolled the petitioner in 11th standard. In this behalf, it is open to the petitioner to take appropriate action against the management seeking damages from the institution. The institution is required to be more careful in future while enrolling the students in the institution.
10. Before parting with this order, we would like to emphasise that the educational institutions at the time of admitting the student in a particular course must properly find out the eligibility of the student at the threshold or at least within few months after enrolling the student provisionally. The State Government may direct the Institutions to comply the aforesaid aspect strictly regarding eligibility of the student at the earliest if not at the time of admitting the student provisionally. The respondent MS Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary is directed to publish and inform the institutions in advance by giving advertisement in widely circulated news papers that if any educational institution wrongly admits such student, even if such student is not eligible to get admission in a particular stream, such institution shall be liable to be derecognized by the Board. The Board is further directed to comply with this direction by informing the educational institutions in the entire State forthwith so that a bona fide student may not be deprived of getting admission if the admission seat is filled in by a student who was not entitled to be admitted. In the instant case, since the petitioner is also contributory to the misrepresentation by submitting incorrect information regarding the percentage of marks, which she has obtained, in the admission form, we would not like to assist such petitioner by directing the respondent as otherwise as Article 226 is not meant to assist the person who has resorted to misrepresentation and illegalities.
11. We accordingly do not find any substance in this petition. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be allowed to appear in 12th standard examination in Commerce stream as three subjects in the Science Stream and Commerce Stream are common. It is submitted that if the petitioner is permitted to appear in examination in the Commerce stream, she may not have to lose precious two years of her career. The petitioner is permitted to apply to the College authority in this behalf. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.3College states that if any application is received in this behalf, the College will forward the same to the Board in connection with allowing the petitioner to appear in StandardXII in the Commerce stream. If any application/examination form is received from the College, the Board may take appropriate decision in accordance with rules and to find out as to whether the petitioner can be allowed to appear in the Board Examination in the Commerce stream. If it is permissible to allow the petitioner to appear in examination in Commerce stream, the Board may take appropriate decision in accordance with the rules and regulations in this behalf. Considering the fact that the academic career of the petitioner may not be spoiled and if it is open to the Board to permit the petitioner appearing in StandardXII, the Board may take appropriate decision in this behalf as deemed fit.
12. Subject to what is stated above, the petition stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged.
