1 4 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1483/2006 Poosa Ram Saini Vs. Board of Secondary Education & Ors. Date of Order :: 28th January 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.Manoj Bohra,for the petitioner. Mr.B.L.Bhati,for the respondents. .... BY THE COURT This writ petition was filed on 17.03.2006 with the submissions that the petitioner was a student of 10th standard studying in the respondent No.2 school and he filled up the examination form whereupon the respondent No.1 Board sent the admission card having the petitioner's roll number 0443973. The petitioner stated the grievance that the admission card was illegally detained by the respondent No.2 and, though permitted to appear in the Secondary School Examination 2006 on 9th and 10th March 2006, he was not allowed to appear thereafter in other appers. The submissions and contentions on the part of the petitioner were noticed by this Court on 20.03.2006 and, while issuing notices, by way of an interim order, the petitioner was permitted to take examination of the remaining papers at the centre and on the roll number on which he was permitted to take two papers earlier subject, of course, to the final decision of this writ petition. This Court observed and ordered thus: 2 “Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was earlier issued admission card for taking Secondary School Examination conducted by the respondent No.1, however, the School concerned [respondent No.2] is alleged to have returned the admission card on the allegation of the petitioner not fulfilling the requirements of the minimum attendance. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the first place the School concerned had informed the Board about the completion of the attendance requirements and the school authorities then informed the guardian of the petitioner that he was being deprived of appearing in examination because of his poor performance that might lead to adverse result. Learned counsel informs that the petitioner has already taken two papers of the examination and if deprived of his chance to appear in remaining papers, he would suffer irreparable injury. Issue notice to the respondents to show cause as to why this petition be not admitted. In the meanwhile and until further orders, petitioner shall not be prevented from taking the examination of the remaining papers at the centre and on the roll number on which he had been permitted to take two earlier papers. However, it is made clear that this shall only be an interim arrangement and shall remain subject to the final decision of this writ petition and shall not invest the petitioner with any additional right.” It appears that the petitioner could not take three papers i.e., Sanskrit, Science-I, and Science-II that were held prior to the interim order passed by this Court and he moved a second stay application on 22.07.2006 seeking directions against the respondents that he may be permitted to take such papers in supplementary examination. This Court, however, proceeded to reject the second stay application on 01.08.2006; and declined the relief with the observations that the petitioner having not completed the attendance, no permission could be 3 given him to appear in the supplementary examination. Even though this matter has remained pending for service on the respondent No.3 (the District Education Officer, Jodhpur) but a reply to the show cause notice has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 and it has categorically been stated that the petitioner's was a case of unreasonable shortage of attendance inasmuch as he attended only 162 out of 316 meetings. It is submitted that the petitioner's attendance at 51.26% had been well below the required minimum attendance at 75% and hence, he was not eligible to appear in the examination and in fact, he was never permitted to take the said examination. The facts as stated in detail by the respondents about shortage of the attendance of the petitioner have not been controverted and in view of such facts, the petitioner is obviously not entitled to any relief and there appears no reason to keep this writ petition pending for service of the respondent No.3. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. s.soni