!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ISION BE 'BLE SHR! RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & 'BLE SHR! SUNSL KUIVSAR SINHA, J. Writ Appeai (C) No. 39 of 2008 Nikhil Gurbanl -son of Shri Inder Gurbani, aged about 19 years, R/o behind Nltin Tites, Sindhi coionv, Jarhabhata, Biiaspur, (C.G.) 1. Gentra! Board of Secondary Education (C.B.S.E.) through - The Director, I.P. Extenslon Patparganj, ~~ New Delhi. 2. Central Board of Secondary Education (C.B.S.E.) Through - The Regional Dlrector, Regional Office at - Todarmal Marg, Ajmer, District Ajmer (Rajasthan) 3. Principal, Maharishi Vidya Mandir-! Mangia, Bilaspur, Dlstrict Bilsspur (Chhattisaarh) Memorandum of VVrit Appeal .under Section 2 of the Hiah Court of C.G. Act 2006 read with Rule 156(10) oftheC.G. Hiah Court Rules of 2005 Shri Devesh Chandra Verma, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri P. Dnwakar, iearned Senior counsei with Shri Adiraj Surana, learned counsel for respondents No. Smt. Hamida Siddique, leamed counsel respondent No.3. JUDGNENT ith i) K 2 ^ The following judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Heard tearned counsel for the parties on admission. 2. Appellant - Nikhii Gurbani has filed this writ appeal against the orderdated 13-03-2008, passed inVrf.P.(C)/No. 1447/2008. 3. Appellant / petitioner filed the writ petition for the following reliefs:- "10.1 This Hon'bte Court may kindly be pleased to cali for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondents for its 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the illness of the petitioner and issue admission card for appearance in the annuai examination which is going to be commenced from 04-03-2008. 10.3 Issue a writ of mandamus also commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to appear in the examination commencing from 04-03-2008. 10.4 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'bie Courtmay think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted." 4. The appellant / petitioner, thus, in substance was seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to appear in the Board Examination for Ctass-XII. 5. Appellant- petitioner Nikhii Gurbani was regular student of Ciass-12 In Maharishl Vidya Mandir-l, Bilaspur. He could not '&s^i iil S%?-M attend the school on 75% of the working days for the academic session 2007-2008. According to the appellant - petitioner, he could not attend the school in the months of October and November,2007 as he was suffering from Viral Hepatitis's E. Appeilant- petitioner submitted his examination form in the mont.h of November, 2007. When he did not get his admission card, he enquired from the school and then learnt that his admission card has not been received because he was debarred from appearing in the examination on account of his shortage of attendance (!ess than 75%). Appeliant - petitioner claimed that on account of his iilness his case deserves special consideration in accordance with the Clauses 13 and 14 of the Examination By-laws, 1995 (Updated up to December, 2004) of the Centra! Board of Secondary Education, Delhi. 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.3 it was categorically stated that the appellant / petitioner was never serious in attending the 'school; he consistently remained absent through out the year; and the medicai certificate submitted by the petitioner disclosina some il!ness in the month of October and November is ex facie false. 7. Shri Deyesh Chandra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the respondents by issuing the admit card to the petitioner impliedly condoned the petitioner's shortage of attendance.. 8. It is not in dispute that under the Examination By-Laws, 1995, a student is required to secure 75% attendance for being entitled to •f- »"B3te£3KE:;^A •J^w^. f kwsvi '••Cf^. ^ ''^ty^ "';'->-^^ appear in the examination. True, Ctause 14 of the Examination By-Laws, 1995 provides for condonation of shortage of attendance in certain exceptionai circumstances created on medical grounds, such as the candidate sufferina from serious diseases like cancer, AIDS, TB or similar serious diseases requiring long period of hospitalization. 9. Para 5 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.3 contains following chart disclosing the numberof working days of the school and the number of days appeliant / petitioner attended his classes and remained absent :- Name of months Working days | Days of present | Date of abserrt ! April 23 10 13 May 4 00 04 June 01 06 July 25 15 I. Auaust 23 21 14 11 09 10 11 10. From the above chart, it is apparent that out of 182 working days, the appellant / petitioner attended the school only on 86 days and remained absent on 96 days. 11. The petitioner's case through out has been that it was on account of his itlness that he could not attend the school in the months of October and November. The above chart reveals that in the months of October and November there were 36 working f'v-Ss&S '•w j November 17.- 10 ! O? 1 December 21 06 | 15 [ January 22 | 11 , ] 11 i'Total 182 86 1 96 '-s'^..S»'.~ ^jy/ subbu days of the school. Of these the petitioner attended the schQol on 18 days and remained absent on 18 days. Thus, it is apparent that out of the petitioner's total absence of 96 days, his absence for 18 days alone has been explained by the petitioner on the medical grounds. For his absence of 78 davs in the months of April, June, July, August, September, December& January, there is absolutely no explanation offered by the petitioner either in his apptication submitted to the Princlpal of the School; in the writ petition or in the present writ appeal. 12. We; therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned order whereby the petitioner's writ petition has been dismissed. 13. The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is herebv dismissed summariiv. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil KumarSinha Judge III Ifi ^s^i Rl IM B m r ;.-^tias,"SE7aatEfa3*°t