Holding

The Supreme Court held that allowing unaffiliated students to appear for CBSE examinations and compelling the Board to issue certificates would subvert the law and therefore cannot be sanctioned by the court.

Summary

Students from non‑affiliated schools in Kerala were denied permission to sit for the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) examinations. The Kerala High Court, first by a single judge and then by a division bench, issued interim orders allowing the students to appear and later directed that certificates be issued without restriction. CBSE appealed, arguing that such orders contravened its bye‑laws which permit only students of affiliated schools to sit for the exams. The Supreme Court held that compelling the Board to admit unaffiliated students and to issue certificates would amount to subversion of law and could not be justified by judicial sympathy. Citing earlier decisions that rejected similar high‑court interventions in academic matters, the Court set aside the High Court’s orders and dismissed the writ petitions. The appeal was allowed, restoring the Board’s statutory regime.

Issues considered

Whether a High Court can, by an interim order, permit students of institutions not affiliated to the CBSE to sit for its examinations.
Whether the CBSE can be compelled by a court order to issue certificates to such students despite non‑affiliation of their schools.

Subjects

Education lawCBSE affiliationinterim ordercertificate issuancesubversion of lawjudicial overreachArticle 226

Judgment

C.B.S.E. AND ANR. A
v.
P. SUNIL KUMAR AND ORS. ETC.

MAY 12, 1998

[SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] B

Constitution of India, Article 226-Students of institutions not affiliated
to Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE)-Whether High Court can
by an interim order permit them to sit for Board exam-Whether CBSE should
be compelled to issue certificates to successful students of institutions still C
not affiliated-Held, no; would tantamount to subversion of law-Education-
CBSE.

Students of classes IO and 12 of certain educational institutions in
Kerala were refused permission to sit for the examination conducted by the D
Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) since their institution was
not affiliated to the CBSE. The Single Judge of the Kerala High Court, by
an interim order, permitted the students to appear for the examination and
further directed that the certificates granted would be subject to the result
of the writ petitions. The Division Bench, taking a compassionate view of the.
matter and being of the opinion that students who had been permitted to E
appear for the examination should not suffer, modified the condition and
directed that the certificate granted should be without any restriction. The
CBSE appealed to this Court.

Allowing the appeal, this Court
F
HELD : To permit students of an unaffiliated institution to appear at
the examination conducted by the Board under orders of the court and then
to compel the Board to issue certificates in favour of those who have
undertaken examination would tantamount to subversion of law. The Court
would not be justified in sustaining the orders issued by the High Court on G
misplaced sympathy in favour of the students. [331-H; 332-A]

A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. Government of Andhra
Pradesh, [1986) 2 SCC 667; State of Tamil Nadu v. St. Joseph Teachers
Training Institute, JT (1991) 2 SC 343; State of Maharashtra v. Vikas
Sahebrao Roundale, JT (1992) 5 SC 175 and Guru Nanak Dev University H
327
328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998)3 S.C.R.
'
. A .v. Parminder Kr. Bansal, [1993] 4 sec 401, referred to.

Central Board of Secondary Education·v. Nikhil Gulati, (1998] 3 SCC
5, distinguished. ·

CIVIL AP~ELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2662 of_l998
B Etc._ _ .

From the Judgment and Order dated 18.6.97 of the Kerala High Court
in O.P. No:2400of1996· .

Altaf Ahmad, Additional Solicitor General, T.L.V_ Iyer, R.P.
C Krishnamoorthy, Tara Chandra Sharma, Ms. Neelam Sharma, Ajay Sharma,
Rupesh Kumar, Subramonium Prasad, Romy Chacko, Ms. V. Mohana, S. Nanda
Kumar, L.K: Pandey and Ramesh Babu M.R., (Ms. Malani Poduval) for State
of Kerala ror:the appearing parties.
i
Th6 Judgment of the Court was delive~ed by
D
PAITANAIK, J. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.

These six appeals filed by the C~ntral Board_ of Secondary Education are
directed against the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the Kerala
High Court dated 18.6._1997 disposing of Writ Appeal Nos. 949/97, 978/97, 285/
E 96, 300/96 as 'wen as the two Original Petitions filed before the Division Bench,
namely, O.P. Nos. 2400/96 and 3559/96. The question that arises for
consideration is : whether students studying in institutions not affiliated to
the Board of Secondary Education can be permitted by the High Court by an ·
. __ interim order to _appear at the examination conducted by the Board and
F ultimately can the Board be compelled to issue certificates to those students
who have appeared ~t the examination pursuance to the interim direction of
the. court notwithstanding the fact that the institutions where the students
were prosecuting their study have not ye~received affiliation of the Central ·
Board of Secondary Education? Writ Appeals 949/97 and 978/97 had been
preferred by the Board-Appellant, against the order of the learned single
G Judge dated 6.2.1997 by which_ order the Board was directed to allow the
students ofSree Narayan Vidhya Bhavan, Chandrappinny, Thrissur to appear
at the examination conducted by the Board. The learned single Judge had· _,
indicated that the said order is being passed in the peculiar circumstances of
the case without the matter being treated as a precedent. TI1e learned Judge
H also further directed that the question of affiliation to Devi Academy Educational
C.B.S.E. v. P.S. KUMAR [PATTANAIK, J.) 329
Society, Guruvayoor will be decided by the Board. Writ Appeal No. 285/96 A
had also been preferred by the Board against the order of the learned single
Judge dated 7.2.1996 disposing of O.P. No. 1566/96. In the said case on the
basis of the order of the learned single Judge the students of the non-
affiliated institutions were allowed to sit at the examination and further they
were granted certificates on the basis of the result of the examination with the B
condition that the same will be subject to the result of the O.P. The Writ
Appeal No. 300196 had also been preferred by the Board against the interim
order of the learned single Judge dated 31.1.1996 by which order the High
Court had permitted the students of appear at the examination conducted by
the Board and then further directed that the certificates granted should be
attached to the condition that the same will be subject to the result of all the C
pending proceedings. The two original petitions have been preferred by 23
petitioners praying therein that .the certificate that has been issued in their
favour with the condition that it would be subject to the final decision of the
pending proceedings should be modified and they should be granted fresh
certificates. All these appeals and the original petitions were disposed of by
the impugned judgment of the Kerala High Court, wherein the Division Bench D
of the Kerala High Court taking a sympathetic and compassionate view of the
matter and being of the opinion that students who have been permitted to
take admission and who have appeared in the examination should not be
allowed to suffer and accordingly modified conditions attached t<' the certificate
and also directed that the students who have taken written examination for E
the 10th and 12th classes in the institution - Sree Narayana Vidhya Bhavan,
Thrissur - should be granted certificates pursuant to the declaration of the
result of the examination and result should be announced within one week
and the certificates to be granted pursuant to the result should not impose
any restriction as has been done in other cases. Similar directions were also
issued in other writ appeals as well as the original petitions filed before the F
Division Bench.

There is no dispute that the institution in which these students had
pursued their studies have not yet received any affiliation from the Central
Board of Secondary Education, who is the appellant in these appeals. Under
the bye-laws of the Board only regular students of affiliated schools with the G
Board are entitled to appear in the Secondary School Examination and the
Senior Secondary School Examination conducted by the Board. Since the
institutions in which the respondents - students have prosecuted their studies
are admittedly not affiliated to the Board but the students have been allowed
to appear at the examination pursuance to the interim direction of the court, H
330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) 3 S.C.R.

A which is in contravention of the Rules and Regulations of the Board, the
question that arises for consideration is : whether the High Court_ was justified
in issuing these impugned directions ? This question no longer remains res
· integra. This Court in several cases deprecated the practice of allowing
students to appear provisionally. in the examinations of the Board or the
B University and then ultimately regularising the same by taking a sympathetic
view of the m~tter. In the case of A.P. Christians Medical Educational
Society v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Another, [1986] 2 SCC 667,
this Court held that the court will not be justified in issuing direction to the
University to protect the interest of the students who had been admitted to
the medical college in clear transgression of the provisions of the University
C Act and the regulations of the University. It was also observed that the court
cannot by its fiat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it owes
its existence and the regulations made by the University itself as that would
be destructive of the rule of law. In the case of the State of Tamil Nadu &
Ors. v. St. Joseph Teachers Training Institute& Anr., JT(l991) 2 SC 343, this
Court held that the direction of admitting students of unauthorised educational
D instituti~ns and permitting them to appear at the examination has been looked
with disfavour and the students of unrecognised institutions who are not
legally entitled to appear at the examination conducted by the Education
Department of the Government cannot be allowed to sit at the examination
. '
and the High Court committed error in granting permission to such students
E to appear at\ the public . examination.
.
All these cases were again considered
. by a three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of the State of Maharashtra
v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale & Ors., JT (1992) 5 SC 175, and it was held that
_the students of unrecognised·and unauthorised educational institutions could
not have been permitted by the High Court on a writ petition being filed to
·. appear in examination and to be accommodated in recognised institutions.
F·· The Court ultimately struck down the direction issued by the High Court. In
yet another case, GuruNanak Dev University v. Parminder-Kr. Bansal and
Others, [1993] 4 SCC 401, another three Judge Bench of this Court interfered
,
with the interim order passed by the High Court to allow students .
to undergo
internship course even without passing the MBBS examination. The Court
G observed: ·
"We are afraid that this kind of administration of interlocutory remedies,
more guided by sympathy quite often wholly misplaced, does no
service to anyone. From the series of orders that keep coming before
us in academic matters, we find that loose, ill-conceived sympathy
• --
.H· masquerades as interlocutory justice exposing judicial discretion to
C.B.S.E. v. P.S. KUMAR [PATTANAIK, J.] 331
the criticism of degenerating into private benevolence. This is A
subversive of academic discipline, or whatever is left of it, leading to
serious impasse in academic life. Admissions cannot be ordered without
regard to the eligibility of the candidates. Decisions on matters relevant
to be taken into account at the interlocutory stage cannot be deferred
or decided later when serious complications might ensue from the B
. interim order itself. In the present case, the High Court was apparently
moved by sympathy for the candidates than by an accurate assessment
of even the prima facie legal position. Such orders cannot be allowed
to stand. The courts should not embarrass academic authorities by
themselves taking over their functions."

On the admitted position and in view of the law laid down by this Court,
c
referred to above, Mr. Altaf Ahmed, Addi. Solicitor General, appearing for the
appellants contended that the impugned direction of the High Court is wholly
erroneous and cannot be sustained. The learned counsel appearing for the
students in different appeals did not dispute the position that the schools
from where their clients have persued their studies are not yet affiliated to the D
Central Board of Secondary Education. But they mainly contended that the
students having been permitted to appear at the examination and they having
been successful and certificates have been issued in their favour, it would
work out great injustice, if the impugned directions of the High Court are set
aside at this length of time. In support of this contention they placed reliance E
on a recent decision of this Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary
Education v. Nikhil Gulati and Another, (1998] 3 SCC 5. In the aforesaid
case, this Court deprecated the practice followed by the High Court to issue
direction and also observed that such aberrations should not be treated as
a precedent in future but did not interfere with the ultimate direction of the
High Court on the ground that fond hopes have been raised in the minds of F
the students and therefore it would be inappropriate to interfere under Article
136 of the Constitution. We are unable to apply the reasoning given in the
aforesaid case, inasmuch as there is no iota of material placed before us to
indicate that the Central Board of Secondary Education, the appellants herein,
either directly or indirectly had held out to the students at any point of time G
that the institutions in which they are prosecuting their studies have been
affiliated or are going to be affiliated at a near future. We are conscious of
the fact that our order setting aside the impugned directions of the High Court
would cause injustice to these students. But to permit students of an
unaffiliated institution to appear at the examination conducted by the Board
under orders of the court and then to compel the Board to issue certificates H
332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 3 S.C.R.

A in favour of those who have undertaken examination would tantamount to
subversion of law and this Court will not be justified to sustain the orders
issued by the High Court on misplaced sympathy in favour of students. In
view of the aforesaid premises, we set aside the impugned judgment of the
Division Bench of the Kerala High Court as well as the interim orders issued
by the single Judge in several petitions out of which the writ appeals arose
B and the writ petitions filed by the respondents stand dismissed. These appeals
are allowed but in the circumstances there will no order as to costs.

S.M. Appeals allowed.

1