\o C^ ^^^1 B®I IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASFDR. W. P. (C.l No. i^^O /2011 PETITIONERS <%ff ^/Wh/ ^My <'/'.^lnJ 6. 7. 8. Ebenezer Samarth F'rakash son of Sandeep Prakash, aged about 19 years, R/o. Vidya Nagar, Bilaspur, District BUaspur (C.G.), Bablu Yadav, son of Dilip Kumar Yadav, aged about 20 years, Tifara, C.S.E.B. Store Room, Tifara, District BUaspur (C.G.), Anil Kashyap, Son of Lalan Kashyap, aged about 21 years, R/o. Uslapur, I.B.P. Tatrol Pump, BUaspur, District Bilaspiir(C.G.), Avinash Bhagat, Son of Ramesh Sai Bhagat, aged about 20 years, J.P.Vihar, House No.16, Mangla, BUaspiir, Dista-ict Bilaspur (C.G.), Mithlesh Kumar Sahu Son of Ram Kumar Sahu, aged about 21 years, R/o. Bahatarai (Sakari), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), Dhananjay Tiwari, Son of Umashankar Tiwari, aged about 21 years, R/o. village Bhatgaon, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.), Sameer Bhosle, Son of Kuleshwar Rao Bhosle, aged about 20years, R/o. Shubham Vihar Colony, Near Lafa Gas Godawn, Sakri, Bilaspur (C.G.), Ku. Asha Yadav, D/o. Upasi Ram Yadav, aged about 27 years, R/o. Bahatarai (Sakari), Bilaspur, District BUaspur (C.G.), \^ ® 9. Sarita Banjare D/o. M.K. Banjare, aged about 19 years, R/o. Central Ware House, Devri Khurd, Chandra Shekhar Azad Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.), 10^- Gopesh Dhuri, Son of Raracharan Dhiiri, aged about 20 years, Science College, Dabari Para, Bilaspur, District BUaspiir (C.G.)., 11. Sujeet Singh Kakodia, son of Ghudan Singh Kakodia, aged about 25 years, R/o. C.S.E.B., SF-908, Kosabadi, Korba, District Korba (C.G-), 12.'' Rupesh Kumar Tiwari, Son of Shiv Kumar Tiwari, aged about 23 years, R/o. Mahamaya Nagar, Tifara, Bilaspur (C.G.) 13. ' Deepak Kumar, Son of Dhalgan Singh Markam, aged about 23 years, R/o. R/o. Bahatarai, Beside of Saroj Vihar, Bilaspur, District BUaspur 14.^- Harprasad Dhuri, Son of Rameshwar Dhuri, aged about 19 years, R/o. Kuhipara, Mopka, Bilaspi.ir, District Bilaspur (C.G.), 15./- Rajkishore Yadav, Son of Chandrika F>rasad Yadav, aged about 18 years, Maharana Pratap Chowk, Nagar Nigam Colony, Bilaspur (C.G.), 16. Manoj Kuniar Dewangan, Son of late Ramdhun Dewangan, aged about 20 years, R/o. Kisan Para Chantidih, Bilaspur (C.G.), 17'. Mayank Kiiraar Kushwaha, aged about Shiv Kiimar Kushwaha, aged about 18 years, Dayalband, Madhuban Road, BUaspi-u- (C.G.), 18. Rajni Chouhan D/o. J.L. Chouhan, aged about 25 years, R/o. Oin Nagar, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. -- State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.), 2. Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education, Through : the Secretary, Pensionbada, Raipitr (C.G.), 3. r" Late Devidayal Sahu Education Society, Navgawan, Block Baloda, District Janjgir - Champa(C.G.), Registered Under the Chhattisgarh Societies Registration Act, 1973 (Registration No.3807), Through : The authorized signatory, Registered Office at Navgawan, Block Baloda, Dista-ict Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). 4. Principal, Mahararu Laxmi Bai Higher Secodnary School, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), 5. Chhattisgarh State Open School, Raipur, Through : the Secretary, Old Director F>ublic Instruction OfGce Building, Pension Bada, Raipur (C.G.), WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. 1. Particulars of the Petitioners: - As given above in the cause title. Particulars of the Respondents: - As given above in the cause title. Particulars of the order against which petitioner is inade:- i.^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 1 740 of 2011 -^ PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS_ Ebenezer Samarth Prakash & Others Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 2089 of 2011 Neeraj Kesari & Others Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others +^ Postfor pronouncementofjudgment&orderon ...2(?..?ayofJune, 2011. ^ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (0 N0. 1740 of2011 Ebenezer Samarth Prakash & Others Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITION (C} N0. 2089 of 2011 Neeraj Kesari & Others Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Writ Petition UnderArticle 226 OfThe Constitution Of India Present:- Ms. Meena Shastri, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri V.V.S.Moorthy, Dy. A.G. for the State. Shri R.S.Patel, Advocate forthe respondent No.2. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Advocate for the respondent No.5. 1. (Delivered on ,..3.o^ayofJune, 2011) The petitioners, seek a direction to the respondent No.5/ Chhattisgarh State Open School, Raipur and to quash the orders dated 22.12.2010 & 29.12.2010 (Annexure P-3 & P-4), whereby the respondent No.2 had declared the petitioners as ineligible for Higher Secondary School Examination, on the ground that the Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education, does not recognize the High School Certificate granted by the Board of Higher Secondary Certificate Education, Delhi. Secondly, to treat the Class-X mark sheets and certificates of the petitioners issued by the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi, as recognized and valid certificates.-TOrd/y, to permit the petitioners to appear in the examination of Class-12 to be held in the month of June, 2011 conducted by the respondent No.5. ^"; :(^ 2. The question in respect of recognition by the respondent No.2 came up for consideration before this Court in Aman Mittal v. Sfate of Chhattisgarh & Others with other connected petitions. This Court, after having examined all the aspects ofthe matter, held as under: "9. On further perusal of the Book No. 216, which provides for equalization, it is clear that the Delhi Board was recognized by the Chhattisgarh Board. Thus, it cannot be held that all the examination certificates issued by the Delhi Board and obtained by the petitioners before 16.6.2009, stands de- recognized for the purpose of further admission to higher classes and thereafter admission to the examination. There is no dispute that the petitioners have obtained class X examination certificate from the ihstitute duly recognized by the Delhi Board before 16.06.2009. Thus, they cannot be denied permission to admission to the course and consequently, examination of class XII. The impugned orders whereby the petitioners were not permitted to write class XII examination is bad and vitiated. 10. This Court, in another case i.e. Amit Kindo & Others v. The State of Chhattisgarh <S Others wherein identical question was involved, has taken a similar view and observed as under: "In the light ofthe above, this writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction that if the petitioners submit their examination forms for appearing in further examination on the basis of their having passed Class-X examination earlier to 16.6.2009, their forms shall not be rejected by the Board on the grounds contained in the impugned order dated 25.09.2009 (Annexure P/1) because the aforesaid order would not be relatable to the case of the petitioners." 11. In view of the above and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the respondent-C.G. Board is directed to permit the petitioners to admission to the course ' Writ Petition (C) No.1559/2011 2 W li.(C) No. 384/2011, decided on 23.02.2011 ^ ^^, •~;».. '":! ^. • .^"^s^ ^' V .^"-l^^J3 ^... ^py '""-^~ ^^ 6. and partiGipate inthe class-Xllexamination, if they have obtained the class-X certificate from the Delhi Board, before 16.06.2009." Thus, the observations and order passed in Aman Mittal (supra) are applicable in the present case also. So far as, direction to respondent No.5 to permit the petitioners to appear in the examination is concerned, the respondent No.5 has taken a clear stand that the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi-in-questjon, was never recognized by the respondent No.5. Thus, they cannot be recognized and, as such, the issue involved in case of Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education is not applicable. The respondent No.5 has submitted a list of recognized Boards of Secondary and Senior Secondary Education. Learned counsel further submits that the scheme of State Open School is different than the regular course conducted by the Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education. In case of admission to High School courses, the minimum requirement is 14 years of age, not any qualification i.e. passing of the lower class examinations before admission to the High School courses, unlike regular system of education. In case of Higher Secondary courses also, the requirement is on passing of High School Examination Certificate by the recognized Board/lnstitution, not any other certificate, as required in regular course ofeducation. 1 have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties in respect of the direction for permission to appear in Class-12 i.e. Higher Secondary courses in the examination conducted by the respondent No.5. It is clear that the student should have passed High School Examination Certificate from recognized Board, in addition to other requirements of age certificates etc. ~7\ ^v 7. The contention of Shri Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5, that the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi, was never recognized by the respondent No.5 for Open School Education program, merits acceptance, as no documents have been produced by the petitioners to indicate that the Board-in-question was ever recognized by the respondent No.5 for Open School Education program. The list of non-recognized Boards of Secondary & Senior Secondary Education published by the respondent No.5 in its prospectus reads as under: NIOS-LIST OF NON-RECOGNISED BOARDS OF SECONDARY AND SENIOR SECONDARY EDUCATION • CENTRAL BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION, ASPATHI BHAWAN, UTTAM NAGAR, NEW DELHI. • ALL INDIA BOARDS SECONDARY EDUCATION, GAZIPUR. • CENTRAL BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION, EAST PATEL NAGAR, NEW DELHI. • BOARD OF ADULT EDUCATION AND TRAINING BRAHMPURI, NAGAL RAI, NEWDELHI. GURUKUL VRINDAVAN. VISHWAVIDYALAYA, • BIHAR STATE MADARSA EDUCATION BOARD,PATNA. • AKHIL BHARTIYA SHIKSHA SANSTHAN, NEW DELHI. • ACN INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITf, RAIPUR. • DOON INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY, RAIPUR. • HINDI SAHITYA SAMMELAN, ALLAHABAD (Recognised by the Govt. of India for purpose of employment). Name of the Board-in-question did not find a place in the list of recognized Boards of Education. ^ 8. In view of foregoing, second and third prayer cannot be granted, as no material has been produced to establish that the mark sheets and certificates granted by the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi, was valid and recognized by the respondent No.5. 9. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition in respect of relief clause 10.3 & 10.4 is rejected. The relief sought for in clause 10.2 is covered by the decision of this Court in Aman Miftal (supra). 10 Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of. No order asto costs. -—~=^— Sd/- Satish K. Agnihutri Judge ashok