Supreme Court of India
REGIONAL OFFICER C.B.S.E.versusKU. SHEENA PEETHAMBARAN AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2003 INSC 443
- Decided
- 1 September 2003
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- BRIJESH KUMAR
Holding
A student who has not passed the Class IX examination as a regular student is ineligible to appear for the Class X examination; Bye‑law 7.3, not Bye‑law 10.2, governs eligibility.
Summary
The Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) appealed against a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that had directed it to declare the Class X result of a student, Sheena Peethambaran, who had failed the Class IX examination as a regular student. The student’s school had initially withheld her Class X admission form, leading to a series of writ petitions and interim orders allowing her to sit for the examination, but the High Court held that she was eligible under Bye‑law 10.2, which only required passing Class VIII. The Supreme Court examined the relevant CBSE Bye‑laws and held that Bye‑law 7.3, which mandates completion of a regular Class IX course and passing the Class IX exam, was the controlling provision; consequently the student was ineligible to appear for Class X and could not be treated as a private candidate. The Court also emphasized that merely forwarding an examination form or granting interim permission does not override statutory eligibility criteria, and warned against judicial sympathy that undermines academic standards. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court’s decision.
Issues considered
- Whether a student who failed the Class IX examination as a regular student is eligible to appear for the Class X examination under CBSE Bye‑law 7.3 or Bye‑law 10.2.
- Whether the student qualifies as a private candidate under Bye‑laws 16, 21 and 22.
- Whether interim court orders permitting the student to sit for the examination confer eligibility to have the result declared.
- Whether the High Court erred in applying Bye‑law 10.2 and overlooking Bye‑law 7.3.
Subjects
CBSE Bye‑lawseligibilityClass IXClass X examinationprivate candidateinterim orderacademic standardssympathycourt interference
Judgment
REGIONAL OFFICER C.B.S.E. A
v.
KU. SHEENA PEETHAMBARAN AND ORS.
SEPTEMBER 1, 2003
[BRIJESH KUMAR AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] B
Central Board of Secondary Education examinatio1r-Bye-Laws 7.3
and 10.2-Respondent being a regular studentfailed in class IX examinations
and her examination form was not forwarded by the school to the Board-
Examinationform was forwarded as per interim directions in a writ petition,
therefore it was disposed of being infructuous-Another writ petition was C
filed against the proposed action of the board of not permitting her to
appear in the examination-Permission to appear in the examination was
granted by an interim order, however, declaration of result was to be
subject to the final decision ofthe writ petition-High Court, disposed ofthe
matter directing the Board to declare her result and issue fresh marks D
sheet-On appeal Held, her case was covered by bye-law 7. 3 and not bye-
/aw 10.2 as she had not cleared class IX examination as a regular student,
therefore, she could not be allowed to undertake examination for class X-
Interim order only allowed her to appear in the examination subject to final
decision of the writ petition, therefore, validity of the examination was E
liable to proper scrutiny as per the relevant bye-laws-Mere forwarding of
form to the Board does not guarantee permission to undertake the
examination-Condoning lapses or overlooking legal requirement on
sympathetic considerations to be discouraged as it ultimately affects
academic standards.
F
Bye-Laws 16, 21 (i) & (ii) & 22 (v)-EligibilitytoappearasaPrivate
Candidate-Respondent had failed in the class IX examination being a
regular student-Held, ineligible as she did not falfill the conditions.
The school authorities withheld the class X examination admission
form ofrespondent No. I, a regular student of the school, as she had not G
cleared her class IX examination. A writ petition was filed and interim
order allowing her to take part in the class X examination held by the
Central Board of Secondary Education, was passed. The writ petition
was rendered infructuous and disposed of as the school had already
forwarded the form. She filed another writ petition when the Board H
275
276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A informed her that she would not be permitted to appear in the
examination. An interim order was passed allowing her to appear in the
examination, however, the result was to be declared subject to decision
of the writ petition. The High Court, rejecting the contention of the
Board that the respondent No. I was not eligible to appear in the High
B School (IX) examination, finally disposed of the writ petition directing
the Board to declare her result and issue fresh marks-sheet. It relied
on bye-law 10.2 of the Board Examination Bye-Laws as in its opinion
the respondent possessed the minimum educational qualification of
passing the class VIII examination two years ago. Hence this appeal by
C the Board.
The appellant contended that bye-law 7.3, which made completion
of a regular course of studies for class IX mandatory for admission
to class X, was applicable instead of bye-law I 0.2 and that respondent
No. 1 was also not a private candidate as per bye-law 16.
D
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Respondent No. I failed to clear her class IX examination
which is a necessary requirement as provided under the bye-laws of the
E Board so as to be entitled to appear in the class X examination. Condoning
the lapses or overlooking the legal requirements on consideration of mere
sympathy factor does not solve the problem rather breeds more violation
in the hope of being condoned. It disturbs the discipline of the system and
ultimately adversely affects the academic standards.(285-E, F)
F 2.1. The High Court overlooked taking note of bye-law 7.3 and
merely quoted the applicability of clause (a) of bye-law 10.2 and nothing
about the applicability of the other clauses. It failed to consider that
bye-law 10.2 will not apply to her but bye-law 7.3 would apply which
made it necessary that she must have passed class IX as a regular
G student before she could be allowed to undertake the examination for
class X. (282-E, G, HJ
2.2. Respondent No. 1 also did not fulfill conditions laid for private
candidates, which further clarified the position that her case would
H only be covered by bye-law 7.3 and not by bye-law 10.2. (283-A)
REGIONAL OFFICER C.B.S.E. 1•. SHEENA PEETHAMBARAN ( BRIJESH KUMAR, J.] 277
2.3. It was completely overlooked that by the interim order, it was A
provided that respondent No. l was allowed to appear in the examination,
subject to decision in the writ petition. The validity of the examination
undertaken by her was liable to proper scrutiny in the light of all
relevant bye-laws. 1283-B·DI
3. The interim orders in the first writ petition only granted
B
permission for filling up the examination form and merely forwarding
of the same by an institution affiliated to the examining body is no
surety that it would permit the candidate to undertake the examination,
as the forms are liable to be scrutinized and checked. f283-E, F)
c
4. The practice of permitting students to pursue their studies and
to appear in the examination under the interim orders passed in petitions
has been deprecated on several occasions. Sympathetic considerations
are pleaded, which result into very awkward and difficult situations.
Rules stare straight into the face of the plea of sympathy and concessions D
against legal provisions. [283-G-H, 284-A)
C.B.S.E. & Anr. v. P. Sunil Kumar & Ors., (1998) 5 SCC 377; Guru
Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kr. Bansal, (1993) 4 SCC 401 and
A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. Government of Andhra
Pradesh & Anr. Etc., (1986) 2 SCC 667, relied on. E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3068 of
1997.
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.7.96 of the Madhya Pradesh
High Court in W.P. No. 426 of 1996. F
Tara Chand Sharma and Ms. Neelam Sharma for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BRIJESH KUMAR, J. The Central Board of Secondary Education G
(for short 'the Board'), felt aggrieved by the decision of Madhya Pradesh
High Court rendered on 2.7.1996 in writ petition No. 426 of 1996, filed
by the respondents No. 1 and 2, whereby directing the Board to declare
the result of the exemination undertaken by the respondent No. I for class
X in the year 1996, hence the present appeal. In the impugned judgment H
278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A it was also directed that a fresh marks-sheet be also issued to her, since
the result had been declared earlier only provisionally. The grievance of
the Board that the respondent No. I was not eligible to appear in the high
school examination, was not accepted.
The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. I was a student
B of St. Paul's School, Morar, Gwalior, affiliated to the Central Board of
Secondary Education, New Delhi. She filled up form for high school
examination but the same was withheld by the school authorities on the
ground that she had not cleared her class IX examination. It gave rise to
filing of a writ petition No. 484/95 by respondents nos. I and 2, the
C candidate and her father. On 4.4.95 an interim order was passed by the
High Court to the following effect :-
"4.4.95
ORDER
D
(I) Notice of admission was given to the respondents.
(2) There is a report that respondents have refused the notice.
(3) Let a fresh notice be sent by way of registered post also and
E service be effected by affixation. The Notices be issued for
18th April, 1995.
(4) In para 11 of the Petition, it has been stated that the
Petitioner was initially "promoted" but later on she was
declared to have "failed". In this view of the matter, a
F
direction is given to the respondents to permit the petitioner
No. 2 to join Class X. This would be subject to the decision
of this petition.
C.C. Today.
G Sd/-
T.S. Doabia
Judge"
Later yet another interim order was granted on 19.9.1995 in Writ
H Petition No. 484 of 1995 to the following effect :-
REGIONAL OFFICER C.B.S.E. 1•. SHEENA PEETIIAMBARAN [ BRIJESH KUMAR. J.] 279
"19.9.1995 A
ORDER
Petitioner No. 2 be permitted to take part in the examination.
To come up on the date already fixed.
B
Sd/- T.S. Doabia
Judge"
The Writ Petition No. 484/95 was thereafter disposed of by order dated
5.12.95, which reads as under :-
c
"Heard.
This petition is rendered infructuous as the admission form for
appearing in examination of the petitioner has since been sent to
the Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi. This is class X
examination. As per the respondents the Petitioner would be D
permitted to take part in this examination. No further direction is
required.
Disposed of as such.
Sd/- E
Judge"
It, however, appears that another writ petition No. 426 of 1996 was
filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 with a prayer that a telegram sent by the
Regional Officer of the Board, Ajmer, Rajasthan not permitting her to F
appear in the examination may be quashed and the petitioner No. 1 may
be allowed to appear in the examination of the Board which was to start
on 6.3.1996. On 1.3.1996 the High Court passed the following interim
order :-
" .... .In view of these circumstances, it is directed that petitioner G
should be permitted to appear in the examination at the roll No.
1118864 as mentioned in the telegram, in all papers of Class Xth.
The result, however, would be subject to the decision of this
petition, Certified copy today, on payment.
Judge" H
280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A Thereafter the next order was passed on 17.5.1996 saying " .... Let the
result of the petitioner be declared. List in the last week of June, 1996".
Ultimately, the petition was finally disposed of by order dated 2.7.1996.
The High Court in its judgment refers to the plea raised by the appellant
to the effect that for taking up examination for Class X a student must
B complete a regular course of studies for Class IX from an institution
affiliated to the Board. Since the respondent No. 1 had not passed her
class IX examination she was not eligible for appearing in the
examination in Class X. Thereafter bye-law 10.2 was quoted in the
judgment, which provision, according to the High Court, was very material.
C It is as follows :-
"10.2 A candidate for All India/Delhi Secondary School
Examination should have :-
(a) passed the Middle School Examination (Class VIII) of a
D Board or of an affiliated/recognized scholl at least two years
earlier than the year in which he would take secondary
school (Class X) examination;
(b) secured a grade higher than grade E in each of the subject
E of internal assessment at the Examination refferred to at (a)
above; and
(c) passed the third language as per requirement laid down in
the scheme of studies."
F
On the basis of the above provision, the Court found that the respondent
No. 1 possessed minimum educational qualification of middle school
examination (Class VIII) so as to be entitled for appearing in the class X
examination. Hence direction was issued to finally declare the result of
G respondent No. 1 and to issue a fresh marks-sheet. Learned counsel for the
appellant has, however, down our attention to provision contained in bye-
law 7.3 of the bye-laws of the Board which reads as under :-
"7.3. Admission to Class X in a school shall be open only to such
a student who :-
REGIONAL OFFICER C.B.S.E.1·. SHEENA PEETHAMBARAN [ BRJJESH KUMAR, J,J 281
(a) has completed a regular course of studies for class IX, and; A
(b) has passed class IX examination from an institution affiliated
to this Board or to any recognized boardor to any recognize
board or is recognized by the Education Department of the
govt or the State/U.T. in which such an institution is located.
B
xxx xxxx"
Thereafter bye-law no. 16 is referred, relating to private candidates. It is
as follows :-
"16. Private Candidates c
Definition : For the purposes of the bye-laws contained in this
chapter and the chapter 5, unless there is something repugnant in
the subject or context a 'Private Candidate' means a person who
is not a Regular but, under the provisions of the bye-laws, is D
allowed to undertake and/or appear in the All India/Delhi Senior
School Certificate Examination or All India/Delhi Secondary
School Examination of the Board.
xxxx xxxxx xxxxx"
We find that bye-laws nos. 21 and 22 are also relevant which are quoted
E
below:-
"21. Person eligible to appear as a Private Candidate for All
India Secondary School Examination :-
(i) A candidate who had failed at the All India Secondary School'
F
Examination of the Board, will be eligible to reappear at the
subsequent examination as a private candidate in the syllabus and
text books as prescribed for the examination of the year in which
he will reappear.
G
(ii) Teachers serving in institutions affiliated to the Board.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
22 (v) Those regular Candidates who have failed to obtain
promotion to class X of the school affiliated to the Board or any H
282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A other recognized Board shall not be admitted to the Delhi
Secondary Examination of the Board as private candidates."
The definite case taken on behalf of the appella:it before the High Court
has been that the respondent no. I had failed in her class IX examination
B for the year 1994-95. In this context the prayer made by the respondent
no. 1 in her writ petition no. 484 of 1995, may be referred to, which reads
as follows :
"(i) to quash the result declared by the Respondent No. 3 in so
far as respondent No. 1 is concerned and Respondent No. I be
c declared as promoted;
(ii) Respondent No. 3 be directed to take supplementary
examination in Hindi and English subjects whithin a period of
seven days with a further direction to the respondent no. 3 to give
respondent no. 1 some time to prepare herself for the supplementary
D examination."
It is thus clear that, according to the respondent no. 1 herself, she was
declared failed in her examination for class IX. The High Court, while
finally deciding the writ petition no. 426of1996 by order dated 2.7.1996
E conveniently overlooked to take note of the provision contained in bye-
law no. 7.3, contents of which have been indicated above. There was only
a mention of clause 7.3 of bye-laws of the Board but nothing beyond that
was indicated or observed in the judgment, as to why it would not be
applicable to the case. Aftger quoting bye-law 10.2 the High Court held
F that the respondent No. I was eligible to appear in the high-school
examination since there was a gap of two years in between her two
examinations viz. class VIII and class X. The High Court also did not record
any finding in respect of other conditions as mentioned in bye-law no. 10.2,
namely, a student must have secured higher than 'E' grade in each subject
of internal assessment and has also passed the third language as per
G requirement laid down in the scheme. The High Court failed to consider
the bye-law 10.2 will not be applicable to the respondent no. I but it would
be bye-law 7.3, which would apply in her case. Therefore, it was necessary
that she must have passed class IX as a regular student before she could
be allowed to undertake examination for class X held by the Board. The
H position stands further clarified in regard to the private candidates under
REGIONAL OFFICER C.B.S.E. "· SHEENA PEETHAMBARAN [ BRIJESH KUMAR, J.] 283
bye-laws no. 16 and 21. The respondent no. I did not fulfill the conditions A
laid for private condidates and her case would only be covered by bye-
law 7.3 and not by bye-law no. 10.2 of the examination bye-laws of the
Board as held by the High Court. Despite the position under the bye-laws
as indicated above, the High Court finally disposed of the writ petition no.
426 of 1996 cursorily holding that since the respondent no. 1 had appeared B
in the examination and her result had been declared provisionally therefore,
the Board was directed to declare her result of class X and to issue a fresh
marks sheet without any endorsement thereon (emphasis supplied). It was
completely overlooked that by order dated 1.3 .1996, it was provided that
the respondent no. I was allowed to appear in examination, subject to
the decision of the writ petition. Hence there was no occasion to say that C
since provisional result has been declared therefore, final result should also
be declared with a fresh marks sheet without any endorsement thereon. The
validity of the examination undertaken by respondent no. 1 should have
been properly scrutinized in the light of all the relevant examination bye-
laws of the Board. D
We also find that in writ petition no. 484of1995, interim orders were
granted permitting the filling up of the form for high-school examination.
But while ultimately disposing of the petition, it was held that the writ
petition had become infructuous since the examination form of the E
respondent no. I had been forwarded to the Central Board of Secondary
Education, Delhi and it is attributed to the respondents in the petition, that
"as per the respondents", the candidate would be permitted to take part in
the examination. It was, therefore, thought that no further direction was
required and the matter was disposed of as infructuous. Merely forwarding F
of an examination form by an institution affiliated to the examining body
is no surety that the examining body would necessarily permit the
candidate to undertake the examination. The forms after being sent are
scrutinized and checked by the examining body.
This Court has on several occasions earlier deprecated the practice G
of permitting the students to pursue their studies and to appear in the
examination under the interim orders passed in the petitions. In most of
such cases it is ultimately pleaded that since the course was over or the
result has been declared, the matter deserves to be considered
sympathetically. It results into very awkward and difficult situations. Rules H
284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A stare straight into the face of the plea of sympathy and concessions, against
the legal provisions. A few decisions on the point may be perused. In
C.B.S.E. and Anr. v. P. Sunil Kumar and Ors., [1988] 5 SCC page 377,
the institutions whose students were permitted to undertake the examination
of the Central Board of Secondary Education were not affiliated to the
B Board, hence the students were not entitled to appear in the examination.
They were, however, allowed to appear in the examination under the
interim orders granted by the Court in contravention of the rules and
regulations of the Board. The High Court considering the matter
sympathetically had not interfered, but this Court observed thus :
c " .... 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 in favour
of those who have undertaken examination would tantamount to
subversion of law and this Court will not be justified to sustain
D the orders issued by the High Court on misplaced sympathy in
favour of the students ... "
The order of the High Court was set aside. Another decision reported in
Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kr. Bansal, [1993] 4 SCC 401,
E a three judge bench decision, was relied upon in the case of Sunil Kumar
(supra). A passage from the above noted decision was also quoted therein
which reads as follows :
"We are afraid that this kind of administration of interlocutory
remedies, more guided by sympathy quite often wholly misplaced,
F 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 masquerades as interlocutory justice exposing
judicial discretion to the criticism of degenerating into private
benevolence. This is subversive of academic discipline, or whatever
G 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 interim order itself.
H In the present case, the High Court was apparently moved by
REGIONAL OFFICER C.B.S.E. •·. SHEENA PEETHAMBARAN [ BRIJESH KUMAR, J.] 285
sympathy for the candidates that by an accurate assessment of A
even the primafacie legal position. Such orders cannot be allowed
to stand. The courts should not embarrass academic authorities by
themselves taking over their functions."
Yet another decision referred to is reported in A.P. Christians Medical B
Educational Society v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. Etc. Etc.,
[1986] 2 SCC 667, again a three judge bench decision. It was observed
in this case :
" .... We cannot by our fiat direct the University to disobey the
statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by C
the University itself. We cannot imagine anything more destructive
of the rule of law than a direction by the court to disobey the
laws."
The above referred matter relates to the admission and examination of D
M.B.B.S. courses.
In the background of the law as laid down by this Court, we find that
in the case in hand the fact situation was even worse as compared to the
decision cited above. The student, namely, respondent no. I had failed to
clear her class IX examination which was a necessary requirement as E
provided under the bye-laws of the Board so as to be entitled to appear
in the class X examination conducted by the Board. Despite notice, no one
has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents no. I and 2 to indicate
any fact or circumstance so as to take any different view, Condoning the
lapses or overlooking the legal requirements in consideration of mere F
sympathy factor does not solve the problem rather breeds more violations
in the hope of being condoned. It disturbs the discipline of the system and
ultimately adversely affects the academic standards.
In the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and order
dated 2.7.1996 passed by the High Court in writ petition No. 426of1996. G
There would, however, he no order as to costs.
A.Q. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "CBSE Bye‑laws"Sign in to search