1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5057 OF 2009 Rajshri d/o Hari Gheware Age: 20 Yrs., occu. Student, R/o at Post Umerde (kh.) Tq. and Dist. Nandurbar. - PETITIONER VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2) The Maharashtra State Secondary & Higher Secondary Board, Nashik Division, Nashik-422001 Through it’s Divisional Secretary. 3) The Principal, Jijamata Education Societies Junior Arts, Commerce & Science College, Nandurbar, District Dhule. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.D.S.Girase, Adv. h/for Mr.M.S.Sonawane,Adv. for Petitioner; Mrs.R.K.Laddha,AGP for Resp.No.1/State. Mr.S.G.Sangle, Adv. for Respondent No.2. Respondent No.3 served. ----- 2 CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE : 6th November, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER :NARESH H.PATIL,J.) . Rule made returnable forthwith and heard learned Counsel for the parties.. 2) The petitioner appeared for H.S.C. Examination held in March-2009 by the Respondent No.2-Board. In the paper of Economics subject, it was found that pages no. 19 and 20 of the answer sheets of the petitioner were missing. Therefore, an inquiry was conducted and the petitioner was held to be responsible for the alleged missing page nos. 19 and 20 of answer sheet and accordingly punishment in the form of, debarring her from appearing in the examinations up to October 2009, was imposed upon the petitioner. 3) We have perused the original answer sheets of the petitioner and the relevant record produced by Mr. Sangle, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2-Board. We find that page nos. 19 and 20 are missing from the answer sheets of the petitioner. Perusal of the answer sheet indicates that some pages are torn. However, we do not find that the serial numbers of the 3 answers given to the questions are manipulated or re-written. Apart from the missing sheets, there is no other allegation against the petitioner. The petitioner has secured 50 marks in the subject of Economics. 4) Learned Counsel for the Board Shri Sangle informed that the petitioner had secured good marks in rest of the subjects except English subject where she has failed. 5) Learned Counsel Shri Girase brought to our notice the order dated 4.9.2008 passed by Division bench of this Court (Coram: F.I.Rebello & K.U.Chandiwal,JJ.) in Writ Petition No. 4858/2008. We have perused the order. 6) Considering the explanation accorded by the petitioner and the facts of the case, we find that the evidence is lacking in putting total blame on the petitioner for the missing pages nos. 19 and 20 of the answer-sheet of the petitioner. It would have been appropriate on the part of the petitioner to bring this fact to the notice of the concerned Invigilator so that appropriate steps could have been taken at the relevant time. Even the Invigilator/Examiner while collecting the answer-sheets from the students did not put any endorsement on the 4 answer sheet of the petitioner as regards missing pages nos. 19 and 20. We notice that the numbers on the answer-sheets are already printed ones. 7) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the petitioner’s performance at the examination need not be cancelled. The punishment imposed upon the petitioner seems to be harsh. We are, therefore, inclined to allow the petition. 8) The petition is allowed. The impugned action taken by the Respondent No.2-Board against the petitioner is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is entitled to prosecute her studies in accordance with law and to appear in future examinations. The Respondent No.2-Board is directed to declare the result of the petitioner within a period of fifteen days from today. 9) Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) (NARESH H. PATIL) JUDGE JUDGE bdv/wp5057.09