CWP No. 2471 of 2009 31.7.2009 Present: Ms. Anu Tuli Azta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate Generals for respondents No. 1, 3 and 4. Mr. G.D. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. The petitioner has undertaken plus one examination as a private candidate at Government Senior Secondary School, Ghanatti, District Shimla. The examination was scheduled between 5.3.2009 and 23.3.2009. The respondent-Board declared the result on 24.5.2009. The petitioner’s result was delayed and (RLF) was written. The expression ‘RLF’ means that result was late because of fees. The requisite balance fee was sent by the petitioner to the respondent-Board on 9.6.2009. The result was declared and despatched to the petitioner on 4.7.2009 by the respondent-Board. The petitioner received the same on 7.7.2009. The case of the petitioner in nutshell is that due to inaction on the part of the respondent-Board, the petitioner could not be admitted in plus two class in the school of respondent No.4. Mr. R.K. Bawa, learned Advocate General and Mr. G.D. Sharma, Advocate have argued that the petitioner cannot be admitted in plus two class belatedly. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings carefully. The result of the petitioner was declared on 24.5.2009. He has sent the balance fee on 9.6.2009. The petitioner has not explained the delay between 24.5.2009 and 9.6.2009. It was incumbent upon the petitioner to immediately make good the deficiency of fee by despatching it to respondent No.2 expeditiously. The result was declared which was received by the petitioner on 7.7.2009. The learned Advocate General has placed on record copy of letter dated 30.7.2009 addressed to him by the Joint Director of Education, Himachal Pradesh. A perusal of the contents of this letter reveals that the scheduled dates of admission for plus two class was with effect from 16.4.2009 to 12.5.2009. The petitioner should have sought admission provisionally. The contentions in paragraphs 7 and 8 are that the petitioner has met respondent No.4 and the Director of Education. The petitioner has not placed any tangible evidence on record to even remotely suggest that any application for that purpose was made. As per Education Code, 2001, the Head of Institution can also make provisional admission upto one month after the last date of admission in a genuine case and thereafter, he has to submit all such cases in list-form to the Secretary, Board of School Education. The petitioner has not approached the authorities in writing even beyond 12.5.2009. Along with letter dated 30.7.2009, the learned Advocate General has also placed on record copy of press note whereby the provisional admission was to be given on “Roll On” system with effect from 16.4.2009 upto ten days without late fee, next seven days with late fee of Rs. 10/- and next seven days with late fee of Rs. 25/-. Thus, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner was not aware of the provisions whereby admission could be made provisional on the basis of ‘Roll On” system. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Jagdish Bhalla), C.J. (Rajiv Sharma), J. July 31, 2009. (cr)