^lt^ (ST Division Besich IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR Writ Apoeal No. ^ /2011 (Arising out offhe order datgd 09.05.2011 passed by leamed Single Judge in WP (C) No. 1 142/2011 & other connected matters) Appellants Respondent No.2 ^ •\ •• .^y ->\r^' ^ 1. Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education (Madhyamik Shisha Mandal), Through the Secretary, Pensionbada, Raipur, (C.G.) ^sy 2- ^y ^y^/ •^' %.'• Divisional Officer, C.G. Board of Secondary Education, Raipur, C.G. Versus ^ Re<§pondents PETITIONER 1. StateofChhattisgarh Through: The Secretary, Department ofSchool Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Yogeshwar Prasad Gendhley, S/o- Shri Kanhaiya Lal Gendhley, Aged aboyt 19 years, R/o-Village-Ka€hargond,Post-Bawli, P.S.-Pathariya, Tehsil-Pathariya, District- Bilaspur, (C.G.) WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2fl)OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH ACT 2006 T' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN. JJ. WritADpeal No. 293 of 2011 Appellant Respondent No.2 Respondents Vs Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education, Raipur (CG) State of Chhattisgarh and others Writ Appeal No. 294 of 2011 Appellant Respondent No.2 Respondents Vs Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education, Raipur (CG) State of Chhattisgarh and others Writ Appeal No. 424 of 2011 Appellants ResDondent No.2 Respondents Vs Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education, Raipur (CG) and another State of Chhattisgarh and another Present: Mr. Pankaj Shrivastava, Advocate for the appellant/Board. Mr. Vinay Harit, Dy. Advocate General for the State. Mr. Prateek Sharma, counsel for respondent No.5 in WA No.293/11, for respondent No.6 in WA No.294/11 and for respondent No.2 in WA No.424/11. ORDER rOral) (7th December, 2011) Per I.M. Quddusi. J; Heard on application dated 13.7.2011 for condonation of delay of 20 days in filing the appeal i.e. W.A. No.424/11. % 2. On due consideration of the reasons assigned in the application for condonation of delay, the application is allowed and delay in filing the appeal (WA No.424/11) is condoned. 3. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally at the admission stage itself. 4. These writ appeals are being decided by a common order as they have been filed against the impugned order dated 9.5.2011 passed by learned Single Judge in WP(c) Nos.1142/11, 1499/11 and 1559/11 whereby the petitions were allowed with a direction to the Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education to permit thepetitioners for admission to the course and to participate in Class-XII examination, if they have obtained Class-X certificate from the Delhi Board, before 16.6.2009. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed writ petitions {W.P.(c) Nos.1559/11 & 1142/11} being aggrieved by the orders dated 22.12.2010 and 9.2.2011 respectively, whereby they were declined permission to appear in Class-XII examination on the ground that they have passed High School Certificate Examination from an institute recognized by the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as "Delhi Board"), which was de-recognized by the Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education, Raipur. In W.P.(c) No.1449/11, the petitioner sought a direction to the respondents to treat his Class-X examination certificate as recognized and valid for the purpose of appearing in examination of Higher Secondary Certificate. 6. Learned Single Judge, after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the common impugned order dated 9.5.2011 allowed the aforesaid w^rit petitions and directed the Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education to permit the petitioners for admission to the course and to participate in Class-XII examination, if they have obtained Class-X certificate from the Delhi Board, before 16.6.2009. 7. Learned counsel for the writ appellant has contended that if the impugned order ofthe learned Single Judge is sustained, then de-recognition @f ihe D^hli ©0^ndby th^ writ app^llgint w^Mlid be ^f no ©©naagven^e.He ha§ further expressed his apprehension that the other students from outside the State of Chhattisgarh may get the benefit of the order passed by the learned Single Judge and may file certificates, obtained by hook or crook, of Delhi Board, which has been de-recognized by the writ appellant. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have supported the impugned order. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, including the impugned order. 10. The Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education/appellant had been giving admission to the students, who passed Class-X examination from the institutes affiliated to Delhi Board. However, subsequently the Delhi Board was de-recognized by order dated 25.9.2009 w.e.f. 16.6.2009 i.e. the 1st day of academic session 2009-2010 and the appellant took a decision not to give further admission to the students, who have passed Class-X examination from the Delhi Board, from onwards 16.6.2009. However, the aforesaid action/order was challenged by the petitioners by way of filing writ petitions and the learned Single Judge by the impugned order disposed of those writ petitions with a direction to the Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education to permit the petitioners for admission to the course and to participate in Class-XII examination, if they have obtained Class-X certificate from the Delhi Board, before 16.6.2009. 11. The respondents in these writ appeals approached for correspondence course to the writ appellant but their request was rejected on the ground that though their ceri:ificates of Class-X were issued for the academic session 2008-09, but after 3 days from the cut off date i.e. 19.6.2009, and ifthe certificates would have been issued priorto 16.6.2009, .-7. it would have been alright. However, from perusal of the record, we find that the date ofthe order de-recognizing the Delhi Board is 25.9.2009, and later on, the said order was made effective w.e.f. 16.6.2009 as the academic session 2009-10 commenced from 16.6.2009. At this juncture, we are not on this as to whether the logic of the writ appellant is correct or not as we are of the opinion that the concerned respondents in these writ appeals, who were petitioners in the concerned petitions before the learned Single Judge, should be allowed to appear in the next examination of Class-XII, if rules so permit. U, With the aforesaid observations, the writ appeals stand disposed of. Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge