Appeal No 1191 of 1967
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 23 1962 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No 592 of 1961
C B Agarwala and 0
P Rana for the appellants
The respondent did not appear
The Judgment of the Court as delivered by Sikri J
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court whereby it allowed the 267 writ petition file by the respondent Kumari Chittra Srivastava hereinafter referred to as the petitioner and quashed the impugned order but left it open to the Board of High School and Intermediate Education hereinafter referred to as the Board to reconsider the case after giving the petitioner a chance to offer her explanation
The facts are not in dispute and the only question which arises is whether in the circumstances the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity to represent her case before the Board prior to the passing of the impugned order
The relevant facts in brief are these
The petitioner was in 1959 60 session a student of Basant Girls Intermediate College Varanasi
She appeared at the Intermediate examination in 1960 but failed
She then joined the Government Inter College for Girls at Jaunpur
Her name was sent up for Intermediate examination to be held in 1961 by the Principal
She appeared in the examination but her result was not declared by the Board
On May 24 1961 the Board addressed a letter to the Principal making enquiries regarding the attendance of the petitioner
According to the regulations framed by the Board no candidate can be presented for the Intermediate examination unless heshe has attended during two academical years 75 of lectures given in each subject in which the candidate is to be examined
In the case of a failed candidate like the petitioner the percentage shall be calculated for one academical year but Regulation 5xiii enables the head of a recognised institution to condone the deficiency in certain cases
This regulation reads xiii The rule regarding minimum attendance shall be strictly enforced
The head of the recognised institution may condone a deficiency in attendance of not more than a ten days in the case of a candidate for the High School Examination and b ten lectures including periods of practical work if any given in each subject in the case of a candidate for the Intermediate Examination
All cases in which this privilege is exercised shall be reported to the Director of Education as the Chairman of the Board
In the cases of failed or detained candidates whose attendance of one year will be taken into account the shortage to be condoned shall be reduced to half 268 The Principal received the letter when on vacation outside Jaunpur
The Principal replied on June 14 1961 saying that a proper reply to paragraphs 1 and 2 of the letter will be sent after July 8 1961
She however stated When Km
Chitra Srivastava absented herself for a pretty long period on account of her illness the position was explained to her besides informing her guardian also who was even called to the office and acquainted with the circumstances
At that time it was possible for her to make good this shortage by her regular attendance
The teacher in Home Science took leave in February 1961
Chitra was short in attendance in other subjects also but she made good the shortage by her regular attendance
When during the days the classes were held lectures in other subjects were held and the girl attended there it was not considered proper to detain her from appearing at the examination on account of her absence from lectures in a subject in which the required lectures were not held
I got the student admitted to the examination as I was confident that the officers of the Board will agree with my view
 The substance of the letter was that the shortage in lectures was due to the lecturer taking leave
The Board was however impatient
It is not clear whether this letter was received by the Board because no reference to it is made in the letter dated July 6 1961
The Board wrote In continuation of this office letter No EI617 dated 24th May 1961 and telegram dated 24th May 1961 1 have the honour to inform that you have not furnished the desired information about the student Km
Chitra Srivastava roll No 50452
From your previous letter No 143E dated 6th May 1961  it is learnt that the admission of the student by you to the examination
by condoning her absence from seven lectures on the subject of Home Science was contrary to rules
Hence the student s Inter Examination of 1961 is cancelled
Kindly communicate this to the student under intimation to this office 269 The Principal replied on July 11 1961 giving details of the lectures attended and requested that the order be cancelled and the severe punishment be not awarded to the petitioner
On October 6 1961 the petitioner filed a petition under article 226 of the Constitution challenging the impugned order dated July 6 1961
Mathur J dismissed it summarily
On appeal Srivastava and Katju JJ allowed the petition as mentioned earlier
They were of the view that the Board while cancelling the examination acted in a quasi judicial capacity
The Board was by cancelling the examination inflicting a penalty and if opportunity had been given to the petitioner to present her case she might have persuaded the Board not to cancel the examination
The learned counsel for the appellant Mr C B Aggarwal
contends that the facts are not in dispute and it is further clear that no useful purpose would have been served if the Board had served a show cause notice on the petitioner
He says that in view of these circumstances it was not necessary for the Board to have issued a show cause notice 
We are unable to accept this contention
Whether a duty arises in a particular case to issue a show cause notice before inflicting a penalty does not depend on the authority s satisfaction that the person to be penalised has no defence but on the nature of the order proposed to be passed
We agree with the High Court that the impugned order imposed a penalty
The petitioner has appeared in the examination and answered all the question papers
According to her she had passed
To deny her the fruits of her labour cannot but to be called a penalty
We are unable to appreciate the contention that the Board in cancelling her examination was not exercising quasijudicial functions
The learned counsel urges that this would be casting a heavy burden on the Board
Principles of natural justice are to some minds burdensome but this price a small price indeed has to be paid if we desire a society governed by the rule of law
We should not be taken to have decided that this rule will also apply when a candidate is refused admission to an examination
We are not concerned with this question and say nothing about it
The learned counsel invites us to hold that the decision of the Board was on the facts correct and that the Board had no power to condone the shortage of 2 lectures
But we decline to into these questions
We are not sitting as a court of appeal and it is for the Board to decide after giving an opportunity to the petitioner and pass such orders as it thinks fit
Whether it has the power to condone the shortage of lectures is for it at least in the first instance to decide
270 The learned counsel further invites us to say that the possible courses which the petitioner s counsel had outlined before the High Court will not be legal or justified
The petitioner s counsel had pointed out that the Board could have been persuaded to adopt some of the following courses 1 To accept the explanation of the principal as valid
2 To condone the shortage of two lectures which the Principal could not condone
The question whether the Board had power to condone shortage was raised in the Board of High School and Intermediate Education Uttar Pradesh Allahabad and others versus G Vishwanath Nayar but was not decided and was left open
It is urged on behalf of the appellant that the power to admit a candidate to an examination vests in the Board
The Regulations only provide the extent to which shortage in attendance can be condoned by the heads of institutions
There is nothing in the Regulations to limit the power of the Board itself to admit a candidate to an examination after condoning shortage which could not be condoned by the head of the institution
3 After noting that a technical breach of rules had been committed the Board or the Chairman may have decided not to take any action
4 The Board may have framed a new regulation with retrospective effect either permitting the head of the institution to condone a shortage in a case like that of the appellant or permitting the Board itself to make the necessary condonation in such cases
5 The Board could have given an authoritative interpretation of the words lectures given  in clause iii of regulation 5 of chapter XII and decided whether the words covered such cases where the students were present to attend the lecture but it could not be arranged because of some unavoidable reason
 But like the High Court we are not called upon to pronounce on their legality or appropriateness at this stage
In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed
As the petitioner now respondent is not represented there will be no order as to costs
VPS Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The respondent appeared in the Intermediate examination and passed but the appellant instead of declaring her result addressed a letter on May 24 1961 to the Principal of the college in which the Respondent was studying making enquiries regarding the respondent s attendance
According to the regulations a candidate must attend 75 of the lectures given in each subject
The Principal by her letter dated June 14 1961 replied that the respondent was at one time short of attendance that she made good the shortage in all subjects except one but the shortage in that subject was due to the fact that lectures Were not given in that subject the lecturer having been on leave
By its letter dated July 6 1961 the appellant cancelled the respondent s result and no reference was made to the Principal s letter in the appellant s letter
The respondent thereupon filed a writ petition challenging the appellant s order cancelling the result and the High Court allowed the petition
In appeal to this Court HELD  The appellant should have given an opportunity to the respondent to present her case and pursuade the appellant not to cancel her result
269 C Whether a duty arises in a particular case to issue a show cause notice before inflicting a penalty does not depend on the authority s satisfaction that the person to be penalised has no defence but On the nature of the order proposed to be passed
In the present case the impugned order imposed a penalty on the respondent as she was denied the fruits of her labour and when passing it the appellant was exercising quasi judicial functions
269 D F