3-.-^ 1 fe ^S ^I 'i^ 'f.^f» IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITAPPEAL No^f ?"_Qf 2011 APPELLANT RE&PONDENT N0.2 C.G. ; Board of Secondary Education : Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal : Through the Secretary, C.G. Board of Higher Education : Pension Bada : Raipur : District Raipur (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS :1) Amit Kindo, aged 20 years, S/o -" S.S.P. Kindo, C/o iShri Amritram Paswan, r/o Railway Construction Colony, Tarbahar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ^ c^fc'0\^^& -^ cv /ft^^ <.-%-• A~<•• .^?' .<'-'' *.<''•-' .^ •^ .?»' :2) :3) ;4) 5) Bhushan Das Manikpuri, aged 20 years, S/o Shri M.D. Manikpuri, r/o CA-279/17, MIG-I, Rajkishore Nagar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), Sandeep Paswan, aged 20 years, S/o Shri Amritlal Paswan, r/o Railway Construction Colony, Tarbahar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), Ku. Savita Patel, aged 18 years, d/o Shri Vikram Aditya, Kasturva Nagar, Q. No. 4, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G), Ku. Lekha Mishra, aged 19 years, d/o Shri B.P. Mishra, rt|WT'!W3mB%' J ? -:12) Monica Makhija, aged 18 years, d/o (wrongly written as S/o) Suresh Kumar, r/o Magarpara Chouck, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), : 13) Anupam Ekka, aged 19 years, S/o Shri Baldev Ekka, r/o Devendra Nagar, Ameri Road, Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.), PETITIONERS 14) The State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary to the Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Department of School Education, DKS Bhavan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), 15) Board of Higher Secondaiy Education Delhi, Through the Secretary, Board of Higher Education Delhi, Rajputana Lal Bhawan No. 17, Gopalpurgaon (Timarpur) Post Office Azadpur, Delhi-9 16) Panchvati Higher Secondary School, Through the Principal, Panchvati Higher Secondary School, Near Old High Court, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). RESPONDENT N0. 1,3 8B4 APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 CLAUSE (11 OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURTIAPPEAL^TO DIVISION BENCH) ACT RULES 2006. UITTtTT^m'^f^' ^ ^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN. JJ. Writ Appeal No. 247 of 2011 Appellant Respondent No.2 Respondents Vs CG Board of Secondary Education, Raipur (CG) Amit Kindo and others Present: Mr. HB Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Mrs. Meera Jaiswal, Advocate for the appellant/Board. Mr. A.D. Shrivastava, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 13. Mr. Vinay Harit, Dy. Advocate General for the State/respondent No.14. rth ORDER (Oral) (7In December,2011) i Per I.M. Quddusi. J; Heard on IA No. 01 , application for condonation of delay of 32 days in filing the appeal. 2. On due consideration of the reasons assigned in the application for condonation of delay, it is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally at the admission stage itself. 4. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 23.2.2011 passed by learned Single Judge in WP(c) No.364/2011 whereby while disposing ofthe writ petition, the learned Single Judge has directed 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 order dated 25.9.2009 because the aforesaid orderwould not be relatable to the case ofthe petitioners. 5. Brief facts of the case are that, Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education/appellant had been giving admission to the students, who have iif'liaBssian I 1¥ ^M / 3 .. it-c" passed Class-X examination from the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi (in short "Delhi Board"). However, subsequentlythe 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 tooka decision not to give further admission to the students, who have passed Class-X examination from the Delhi Board, from onwards 16.6.2009. 6. The petitioners are students of Class-XII, they have cleared their Class-X examination in the academic session 2008-2009 from Delhi Board, which was, at the relevant time, duly recognized by the writ appellant. The petitioner took admission in Panchawati Higher Secondary School, Bilaspur, which was affiliated to Delhi Board and recognized by the writ appellant. Thereafter, the petitioners filled up their admission/examination forms at their < school for appearing in Class-XII examination, which were forwarded to the writ appellant for affiliation and granting enrollment numbers to enable the petitioners to appear in the examination of Class-XII conducted by the writ appellant. However, the writ appellant returned those admission/examination forms of the petitioners on the ground that recognition granted to the Delhi Board has been cancelled by the writ appellant on 25.9.2009 w.e.f. 16.6.2009 i.e. 1st day of academic session 2009-10 and therefore, the petitioners are debarred from appearing in the examination of Class-XII conducted by the writ appellant. 7. Being aggrieved by the said action/order of the writ appellant, the petitioners preferred a writ petition before this Court, which was allowed by the impugned order and it was directed that if the petitioners submit their examination fomns 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 order dated 25.9.2009 because the aforesaid order would not be relatable to the case of the petitioners. '•^ J? s< 8. Learned counsel for the writ appellant has contended that if the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is sustained, then de-recognition of the Delhi Board by the writ appellant would be of no consequence. He has 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 Singte Judge and may file certificates, obtained by hook or crook, of Delhi Board, which has been de-recognized by the writ appellant. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have supported the impugned order. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, including the impugned order. 11. Admittedly, the petitioners have cleared their Class-X examination in i the academic session 2008-09 from the institutes affiliated to D&lhi Board, which was, at that time, duly recognized by the writ appellant. The petitioners took admission in Panchawati hligher Secondary School Bilaspur/respondent No.16, which was affiliated to Delhi Board, and pursued their studies in Class-XII. As such, they are regular students of the institutes recognized by the writ appellant and cannot be denied participation in Class-XII examination conducted by the writ appellant on the ground that recoghition of the Delhi Board has been withdrawn w.e.f. 16.6.2009. 12. In our opinion, the cases of the instant petitioners, who were regular students of the institutes recognized by the writ appellant are distinguishable from others. Therefore, we dispose of this writ appeal with a direction to the writ appellant to recognize the appearance of the petitioners, who were regular students of Class-XI and XII in the institutes recognized by the writ appellant, and further, consequential action shall be taken treating them having validly appeared in the studies and courses in Class-XI and XII. No order as to cbsts. n Sd/- t.M. Quddusi Judge ^