SUNIL ORAON GUARDIAN Vs. C B S E
LAWS(SC)-2006-11-61
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: JHARKHAND)
Decided on November 13,2006

MINOR SUNIL ORAON JR.GUARDIAN Appellant
VERSUS
C.B.S.E. Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

BHARAT SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-2007-2-126] [REFERRED TO]
K M BENEDICT CRIZAL VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2011-1-93] [REFERRED TO]
N.PRITHAVI RAJ SINGH VS. BHARAT DYNAMIC LTD., HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-2013-11-83] [REFERRED TO]
RAM DULARI BACHCU LAL JAISWAL MAHAVIDYALAYA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2010-3-85] [REFERRED TO]
C/M BABU BAIJ NATH SINGH MAHAVIDYALAYA AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-6-2] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ KUMAR PASWAN VS. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY [LAWS(PAT)-2017-5-165] [REFERRED TO]
BISHAPIT KISSAN SANGHARSH MORCHA VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2013-8-105] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARISHI MARKANDESHWAR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH MULLANA-AMBALA AND ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2013-1-445] [REFERRED]
SAMIDHA D/O UMESH RATHI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2017-10-106] [REFERRED TO]
SUJATA AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2017-1-164] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. M/S. MARIA HOMOEOPATHY MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-2018-6-1058] [REFERRED TO]
NABA KRUSHNA PADHY AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-2018-1-82] [REFERRED TO]
CHINAI COLLEGE OF NURSING VS. REGISTRAR RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE [LAWS(KAR)-2010-8-39] [REFERRED TO]
DEVASMITA CHAKRABORTY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2012-5-42] [REFERRED TO]
SHUBHANGI SINHA VS. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2019-9-232] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL VS. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION [LAWS(DLH)-2020-3-95] [REFERRED TO]
SANIYA SIDDIQUI VS. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2009-7-239] [REFERRED TO]
K.M. BENEDICT CRIZAL VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2017-7-103] [REFERRED TO]
MANPREET KAUR AND OTHERS VS. PUNJAB UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2007-4-234] [REFERRED]
SRI MOTI SINGH JAGESHWARI AYURVEDIC MEDICAL COLLEGE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-2009-1-99] [REFERRED TO]
PRITHAVI SHARMA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2007-8-29] [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION & TRAINING ORISSA VS. REGIONAL COLLEGE OF HEALTH SCIENCE (ANM/HW(F),TRAINING CENTRE [LAWS(ORI)-2011-9-56] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL COLLEGE, AMARWADA VS. STATE OF M. P. [LAWS(MPH)-2022-1-248] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVAM COLLEGE OF HIGHER STUDIES VS. BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD [LAWS(PAT)-2021-10-9] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION VS. BHARAT SING [LAWS(PAT)-2007-2-62] [REFERRED TO]
V KRISHNAMOORTHY VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2011-10-40] [REFERRED TO]
KARUNA VS. GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2013-3-524] [REFERRED]
COUNCIL OF SECONDARY EDUCATION VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2013-11-61] [REFERRED TO]
DEVMATA EDUCATIONAL AND WELFARE ASSOCIATION SAMITI VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2009-7-72] [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING VS. ACHARYA HARIHAR AUXILIARY NURSING MIDWIFERY TRAINING SCHOOL [LAWS(ORI)-2012-1-76] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHA KUMARI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2022-3-61] [REFERRED TO]
SONAM GARG NAD RADHA GOYAL VS. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECNICAL EDUCATION THROUGH ITS ADVISOR [LAWS(RAJ)-2011-5-51] [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN PRADESH V S SARDARSHAHAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2010-6-6] [REFERRED TO]
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT ANURAGI DEVI DEGREE COLLEGE VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(SC)-2016-6-8] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL BAQUI S/O. ABDUL JABBER VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2018-1-96] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL WOMEN'S COLLEGE OF EDUCATION VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-11-291] [REFERRED TO]
FARHEEN JAHAN VS. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND OTHERS [LAWS(DLH)-2017-8-263] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL VS. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION [LAWS(GJH)-2020-3-152] [REFERRED TO]
LATE MANHARLAL VRAJLAL POBARU EDUCATION & CHARITABLE TRUST VS. SAURASHTRA UNIVERSITY THRO REGISTRAR [LAWS(GJH)-2013-1-6] [REFERRED TO]
REKHA VS. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2010-10-112] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARISHI MARKANDESHWAR MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2016-12-57] [REFERRED TO]
T ARUTSELVAM VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2012-3-34] [REFERRED TO]
Board of Secondary Education, Orissa VS. Managing Committee, Hemachandra Simanta Sanskrit Bidyapitha, Dist-Balasore [LAWS(ORI)-2012-1-51] [REFERRED TO]
IN RE: STATE VS. STATE [LAWS(ORI)-2009-10-63] [REFERRED TO]
SHAILENDRA KUMAR AND ANR. VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2013-3-95] [REFERRED TO]
VISVESWARAIAH TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY VS. DEBASHREE CHOWDHURY [LAWS(KAR)-2007-12-43] [REFERRED TO]
MS. KARUNA VS. GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL AND OTHERS RESPONDENTS [LAWS(P&H)-2013-3-265] [REFERRED TO]
NIBHA KUMARI VS. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY [LAWS(PAT)-2007-3-37] [REFERRED TO]
PATEL UTSAV DINESHBHAI VS. GUJARAT AYURVED UNIVERSITY [LAWS(GJH)-2021-1-150] [REFERRED TO]
TULSI A.N.M. TRAINING CENTRE VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2012-7-66] [REFERRED TO]
PASTOR C GNANADOSS VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2010-1-153] [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT EXAMINATIONS; DIRECTOR OF TEACHER EDUCATION RESEARCH AND TRAINING AND THE PRINCIPAL, DISTRICT INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING; JAYASURIYA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION VS. JAYASURIYA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION; M GUNASEKAR AND J DAKSHINAMOORTHY; DIRECTOR OF TEACHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING AND THE PRINCIPAL, DISTRICT INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING [LAWS(MAD)-2009-11-694] [REFERRED]
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2017-8-56] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION (CBSE) VS. V M PUBLIC SCHOOL [LAWS(KER)-2019-4-69] [REFERRED TO]
K M BENEDICT CRIZAL VS. DIRECTOR OF TEACHER EDUCATION [LAWS(MAD)-2010-6-251] [REFERRED TO]
J BALASUBRAMANIAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2008-4-215] [REFERRED TO]
MAHATMA GANDHI INTER COLLEGE, JEHANABAD VS. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY-CUM-COMMIS- SIONER, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2009-11-81] [REFERRED TO]
JAMIL AKHTAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2007-2-156] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. - (1.)LEAVE granted.
(2.)CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal which was filed by the Cambridge School Parents Association and another questioning legality of the judgment and order dated 15.6.2006 passed by a learned single Judge in a writ petition. In the writ petition prayer was for a direction to the respondent-Central Board of Secondary Education (in short the 'CBSE') to allow the students to appear in the examination conducted by CBSE and to publish their results. The writ petition related to 159 students of Class X and 121 students of class XII of the Cambridge School, Tatisilwai, Ranchi for appearing in the examination which was scheduled to be held on 1st March, 2006. Though initially learned single Judge had permitted candidates to appear pursuant to interim order dated 27.2.2006, subsequently the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the school was not affiliated to the CBSE and, therefore, no direction sought for could be given. In the appeal filed under Clause 10 of Letters Patent, the view was endorsed,
In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellants submitted that for no fault of theirs, the academic career of nearly 300 students is being jeopardized. Non-affiliation for some particular years has been highlighted by learned single Judge and the Division Bench overlooking the facts that affiliation has been granted on 29.8.2006 for the academic session 2006-07 covering the period from 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2007.

In response, learned counsel appearing for CBSE and its functionaries submitted that the present appellants were proforma respondents before the High Court and the Cambridge School Parents Association purporting to be an unregistered Association of Parents of children studying in the said institution was the appellant. Further one of the proforma respondents was the appellant no. 2 before the High Court. It is pointed out that law is fairly well settled that students of non-affiliated schools cannot claim any relief on equitable ground. Any sympathy shown to the students of the unaffiliated and/or non-recognised institutions would be mis-placed sympathy.

(3.)CERTAIN facts which are undisputed need to be noted:
5.1. The respondent no. 4 the Cambridge School had applied for grant of affiliation in September 1994 and was granted affiliation for a period of three years i,e. with effect from 1.4.1994 to 31.3.1997. The school applied for upgradation to plus 2 stage and the school was accorded upgridation up to plus 2 stage for a period of three years from 1.4.1996 to 31.3.1999, The affiliation of the school at Secondary/Sr, Secondary level was further extended for a period of three years from 1.4.1999 to 31.3,2002 and thereafter up to 31.3.2005 subject to fulfillment of Examination Bye Laws and the Affiliation Bye Laws of CBSE. As per the Affiliation Bye-Laws of CBSE, the school applying for affiliation has to fulfill certain essential conditions, The relevant provisions relating to affiliation in the Bye Laws are as under:

(i) It is mandatory for a school affiliated to Board to follow the Examination Bye-Laws of the Board in toto; (ii.) No affiliated school shall endeavor to present the candidates who are not on its roll nor shall it present the candidates of its unaffiliated branch/school to any of the Board's Examination. (iii) If the Board has reasons to believe that an affiliated school is not following the subsection 1 and 2 of this section, the Board may resort to penalties as prescribed hereunder. (iv) Every affiliated school shall present a list of number of students and their particulars in respect of Classes IX, X, XI and XII at the time of beginning of an academic session.

5.2. According to the respondent CBSE, the school in gross violation of Affiliation Bye-Laws was admitting large number of students in the secondary and senior secondary classes without providing support in terms of infrastructural facilities and also without adequate provision of qualified teachers. There were 30 sections in the school in classes IX to XII whereas there were only 40 sections from Nursery to Class VIII. It was also found that the school had admitted students from other unauthorized schools and sponsoring the students of unaffiliated school through this school. Inspection by the Inspection Committee constituted by CBSE was conducted and the Inspection Committee found that the school was not abiding by the Examination Bye Laws/Affiliation Bye Laws of the CBSE. It was further noticed that in clear violation of the norms, the Cambridge School, Tatisilwai, Ranchi which was the only school affiliated with the CBSE was running three schools which were not affiliated with the CBSE, they are as follows:

1. Kamla Nehru Vidya Mandir Tatisilwai, Ranchi, 2. Cambridge School, Kumartoli, Ranchi, 3. Cambridge School, Morhabodi, Ranchi.

The Inspection Committee found that the said school was not in a position to accommodate a large number of candidates as has been sponsored by it for taking All India Secondary School Examination and All India Senior School Certificate Examination to be held in the year 2002 and 2003. Other deficiencies were also noticed. One of the major infraction was that the school failed to produce the original school records, namely acquaintance roll of the teaching/ non teaching staff working in the school affiliated with the CBSE, fee collection register and the class wise attendance register. A large number of students had been sponsored for appearance, though the number of bonafide students was much less. Notice was sent to the school to show cause as to why necessary actions are not to be taken to withdraw provisional affiliation granted. Considering the replies to various communications by letter dated 27/ 28.2.2003 the school was informed as follows:

"However, taking into consideration the career of students and to safeguard the academic future of present students studying under the CBSE pattern and are in the classes IX, X, XI and XII, the Competent Authority of the Board has agreed to permit all these students to appear at the All India Secondary and All India Sr. Secondary Certificate Examinations, scheduled to be held in March, 2003 and 2004. But the school will not run any class under CBSE pattern specifically classes IX, X, XI and XII w.e.f. academic session 2003 and 2004 and in case of any violation in this regard the responsibility and consequences would rest upon the school authorities and the Board shall not be responsible."

5.3. CBSE was requested by the school to reconsider and review the decision regarding withdrawal of violation. In reply CBSE vide its letter dated 23.7.2003 advised the school not to run any secondary/senior secondary classes under CBSE pattern.

5.4. A mercy appeal vide letter dated 19.1.2003 was submitted by the school and request was made to safeguard the educational interest of the students. The school instead of removing the deficiencies communicated to them by CBSE, requested for a sympathetic consideration by letter dated 16.3.2004. Joint Secretary (Affiliation), CBSE informed the school to submit the status report of removal of deficiencies as had been intimated to the school and it was, therefore, required to apply afresh for provisional affiliation as per the requirements of the Affiliation Bye Laws. The school applied for grant of fresh affiliation by application dated 31.5,2004, An inspection team was appointed for inspection of the school. As the essential conditions had not been fulfilled, the application was rejected by letter dated 7.10.2004. The school was informed about the glaring irregularities committed. The President of the school again requested CBSE to allow the students to appear in Class X and XII Board Examinations which was scheduled to be held in March, 2005. School reiterated its request and by letter dated 19.11.2004 made a prayer for allowing students of Class X and XII to appear in 2005 Examination though their application for composite affiliation had been rejected. CERTAIN undertakings were given in the said letter dated 19.11.2004 which, so far as relevant, are as follows:

"(a) We have not taken admission in Class IX and XI and will not admit without the permission of the Board. (b) We have not admitted any additional student in class X and XII for 2005 Exam. (c) I firmly promise not to approach the Board in future for examinations to be held after the students currently in Class X and XII are kindly allowed to take their examinations in 2005 on humanitarian grounds."

5.5. On the basis of the undertaking the Joint Secretary (Affiliation) CBSE by letter dated 9.12.2004 informed the school about the consideration of the request. It was noted that there were no students in classes IX and XI for the examinations to be held in 2006 and only students of class X and XII were allowed to appear at the All India Secondary and Senior Secondary Examination to be held in March, 2005 provided no candidate was directly admitted in class X and XII in the school.

5.6. The school again applied for affiliation on 22.3.2005 clearly indicating that there was no student in class IX and XI.

5.7. By letter dated 28.6.2005 CBSE informed the school that its request shall be considered up to secondary level in the first instance. The school was clearly warned to stop functioning of its classes upto senior secondary level, without remaining the deficiencies pointed out on several earlier occasions. Vide letter dated 6.2.2006 the school requested CBSE to permit 159 students in class X and 121 students in class XII to appear examination which was to be held in March, 2006. The request was turned down.

5.8. It is essentially the stand of CBSE that the school is not an affiliated one to the CBSE and students whose schools are not affiliated with the Board cannot be allowed to sit in the Board's Examination as regular students. Though by interim order dated 27.2.2006 the learned single Judge directed CBSE to allow the students of class X and XII of the school provisionally appear at the Examination, the same was subject to the decision of the case. Subsequently, the writ petition was dismissed and as noted above the letters patent appeal was also dismissed, By filing additional affidavit the petitioner has stated that some of the students who have taken the examination pursuant to the interim order passed by the Board were in fact bona fide students, 32 students were studying from the lower schools and the 13 students were also studying from lower classes but had failed earlier appeared in class XII examination. Since these students are bona fide students even if it is held that affiliation has not been granted for certain period, that cannot be taken as a weapon to practically destroy the educational career of the students. The appellants have enclosed a list of 159 students of class X and 121 students of Class XII who were allowed to appear in the secondary school and senior secondary examination, 2006 in terms of the interim order passed. CBSE in its affidavit had clarified that 728 students appeared in Class X Secondary School Examination which was held in 2006 from the school. Names of only 16 students appear in the list of Class XII examination held in 2006. The details in this regard are stated as follows:

"..further say that out of 728 students appeared in Class X examination (Secondary School Examination) held in March, 2004 from Cambridge School, Tatisilwai, Ranchi names of following 16 students only appear in the list of Class XII examination held in March, 2006 from this School: JUDGEMENT_375_JT10_2006Html1.htm

Pancham Kumar Basant Jonko I am stating hereunder the status of 121 students mentioned in Annexure 1 annexed by the petitioner with the special leave petition: SI. Nos. 6, 7,14, 20 and 28, 36, 38, 44, 45,48, 49, 54, 56, 75, 78, 87, 104, 106, 117, 119 have not appeared in Class X Examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education but have appeared from other Board. The Roll Nos. of candidates at SI. No. 34, 79, 121 as stated in Annexure I are wrong, hence, their status has not been given. SI. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16,17,18,19, 21, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 39, 40,41, 42, 47, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 65,69, 70, 74, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93,94, 95, 96, 97, 102, 103, 105, 109, 110, 111, 112,113, 114, 115, 116, 118, 120 have not appeared in Class X Examination of CBSE from Cambridge School, Tatisilwai, Ranch. I am enclosing herewith Annexure R-13 showing the details of the students and schools from where they have passed class X examination."

Now, we would refer to the law settled by this Court in various judgments to the effect that interim orders of the nature passed in the present case are detrimental to education and its efficient management. As a matter of course, such interim orders should not be passed, as they are aberrations and it is subversive of academic discipline.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.