1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6841 OF 2009 Gajanan s/o Venkati Dhage, Age-16 years, Occu:Student, R/o-Vazirgaon, Post-Patoda (T.B.), Tq-Naigaon (Khairgaon), Dist-Nanded, Minor, Through his father, Shri. Venkati s/o Dattaram Dhage, Age-43 years, Occu:Farmer, R/o-Vazirgaon, Post-Patoda (T.B.), Tq-Naigaon (Khair), Dist-Nanded. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The Head Master, Rajiv Gandhi Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Vazirgaon, Post-Patoda(T.B.), Tq.Naigaon(Khairgaon), Dist-Nanded, 2) Shri. Sayed A. Shaikh, The Director of Examination Center No.5101 (Shri. Sant Balgir Maharaj High School Kapsi (Gumpha), Tq-Loha, Dist-Nanded) Through: The Divisional Secretary, Maharashtra State Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board, Latur Divisional Board, Latur- 413531, 2 3) The Divisional Secretary, Maharashtra State Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board, Latur Divisional Board, Latur- 413531. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.G.M. Jadhav Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.Santosh C. Bhosale Advocate for Respondent No.1. Smt. Asha S. Rasal Advocate for Respondent No.3. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 13TH JULY, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.] : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself. 2. The Petitioner appeared for 10th Standard Examination in the academic year 2008-2009. The examinations were to commence from 5th March, 2009. According to the Petitioner, he suffered 3 injuries to his right leg, which got fractured. His leg was plastered. Therefore, the Petitioner filed application on 3rd March, 2009 with the Head Master for allowing him to take services of a writer. The director of examination allowed the Petitioner to appear in the examination along with the writer. On 16th March, 2009, an official of the Board inspected the examination center and on enquiry, found that assistance of writer was taken in violation of the guidelines issued by the Secondary School Board, Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad. 3. Enquiry was conducted and the Petitioner's performance in the said examination was cancelled and he was debarred for appearing in further two consecutive examinations. This action was challenged in this Petition. 4. The present Petition was filed on 1st September, 2009. On behalf of Respondent No.3 Board, affidavit in reply is filed. 4 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the Petitioner had suffered injuries. His right leg was plastered, he was unable to sit and write the answer-sheets and therefore application was forwarded to the Head Master for having assistance of the writer. The Director of Examination who supervises the examination center, permitted the Petitioner to have assistance of the writer. The writer had accordingly written the answer-sheets in the presence of the Petitioner. The counsel submits that the Petitioner is not at fault. In case the Board finds that certain requirements were not complied with by the Director, then the Petitioner shall not be punished for the same. The impugned order, according to the Petitioner, is stigma on the Petitioner's career. The Petitioner had already suffered punishment of debarring for two terms to appear in the examination, due to efflux of time. The Petitioner's anxiety is that if the 5 impugned order is quashed, then the stigma would be removed, which would help him in his future career and life. 6. On behalf of the Board, learned counsel produced original record. The counsel on instructions, submits that in view of the guidelines issued by the Board, more particularly, guideline No.16(6), the director who had powers to take urgent decisions considering the exigencies of the situation, was required to forward the proposal for seeking permission of the higher Authorities of the Board, which he had failed to do so. The certificate authenticated by the Civil Surgeon was not produced in time. Therefore, Board rightly conducted an enquiry and passed the order. 7. We have perused the original record placed before us. The Petitioner with the assistance of writer, had written the answer- sheets of the examination. They were checked and accordingly marks were also given. 6 8. From the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find that the Petitioner has taken undue advantage or benefit of the facility of having a writer in the given circumstances. The Petitioner had filed an application with the Head Master two days prior to the commencement of the examination. It was incumbent on the Director to comply with the necessary formalities as envisaged under the guideline No.16, but he failed to do so. We do not find that any explanation is called by the Board from the Director concerned in this regard. 9. In the matters of examination, all mandatory rules, guidelines are required to be followed strictly by all concerned including the students. For maintaining high standard and for adhering to complete fairness and transparency in conducting examination, the Board frames the rules/ guidelines from time to time, which have to be complied with by the School Authorities, 7 Directors of Examination and the students appearing in the examination. 10. In the facts of the case we find, from the material placed on record, that the Petitioner had suffered injuries to his leg. His leg was plastered and it seems that he must not be in a position to appear in the examination and write answer-sheets himself. The Petitioner had filed an application with the Head Master two days prior to the commencement of the examination. The Director, considering the physical condition, allowed the Petitioner to appear in the examination with the assistance of writer. The Petitioner continued to appear in the examination along with the writer from 5th March, 2009. On 16th March, 2009, the official of the Board noticed the writer and raised query in respect of the compliance of the necessary instructions/guidelines of the Board and it was found that certain compliances were not fulfilled by the Director. In the entire exercise, we do not find that the student is to be blamed 8 entirely. The Director ought to have discharged his duties in the light of the guidelines and instructions of the Board. In absence thereof, the student had to suffer. The Board conducted an enquiry and it was found that the student is responsible and therefore punishment was imposed. Unfortunately, the student suffered the punishment and even could not appear for further examination for next two terms. 11. We would appreciate the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that though the Petitioner suffered his punishment but if the order passed by the Board is sustained, then it would amount to stigma on the Petitioner's career. In the facts of the case, we find that the Petitioner's contentions are required to be taken into consideration. We find the submissions to be convincing one. In the facts of the case, we are inclined to allow this Petition. 12. The decision taken by the Board for 9 cancellation of the performance of the Petitioner in the examination of March, 2009 and further debarring him for appearance of two consecutive examinations, is quashed and set aside. We direct the Board to declare the result of the Petitioner within two weeks from today. We further direct the Board to issue strict instructions to all the Directors and Head Masters of the Schools, bringing to their notice the guideline No.16 issued by the Board, so in future the Authorities would properly and seriously take into consideration the necessity to comply such directions of the Board. . Rule is made absolute on the terms indicated above. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/JULY10/wp6841.09