IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 237 of 2011 Uttarakhand Education Board Through its Secretary, Ramnagar, District Nainit al …….…….. Appellant Versus 1. Km. Pratibha Giri Goshwami D/o Ganesh Giri Goshwami, R/o Road Bhawaniganj, Haldwani, District - Nainital. 2. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Department of Education, Dehradun. 3. Director, School Education, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 4. District Education Officer, Nainital. .….............. Respondents Present: Ms. Seema Sah, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State/respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, Chief Justice Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, Judge Date: 31st October, 2011 JUDGMENT Barin Ghosh, C. J. (Oral) (Delay Condonation Application No.10361 of 2011) The learned counsel for the respondents have graciously felt that there may not be any reason to oppose the application for condonation of delay. We have also considered the averments made in the application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. We are satisfied with the reasons furnished for the delay. We, accordingly, allow the application. (Special Appeal No. 237 of 2011) The appellant Board published an advertisement and thereby held out that any person having the required requisites, as mentioned in the advertisement, may apply to sit in the Uttarakhand Education Board Examination 2009-10 session. The advertisement 2 spelt out that the candidate may apply for that purpose on or before 20th August, 2009. It was also held out in the advertisement that until 24th August, 2009 a candidate may apply for the selfsame purpose upon payment of late fees. Respondent No.1 filed an application in terms of the said advertisement with late fee on 25th August, 2009. The said application was filed with one of the authorized representatives of the appellant, namely, the Principal, Khalsa National Girls Inter College, Haldwani (Nainital). Subsequently, the selfsame authorized representative of the appellant issued an admit card to respondent No.1. Respondent No.1, on the strength of the said admit card, appeared in the examination, which was held in March and April, 2010. Results of the said examination were declared by the appellant in June 2010 but the result of respondent No.1 was not declared. Respondent No.1 tried her best to obtain the result but having failed to do so, filed a writ petition. In opposition to the writ petition, appellant contended that since the application was submitted by respondent No.1 on 25th August, 2009, the same was rejected on 21st May, 2010 and that was purported to have been communicated to respondent No.1 by a letter dated 26th November, 2010. 2. The writ petition has been decided in favour of respondent No.1, whereby the appellant has been saddled with costs of ` 50,000/- together with the direction upon it to declare the result of the respondent No.1. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been preferred. The only contention in the present appeal is also submission of the form by respondent No.1 one day after the last date. 3. While dealing with the matter, the learned Judge, who dealt with the writ petition, noticed that the examination in question is governed by statutory rules, and that, Rule 8(3) of the Rules provides that the competent authority, in the instant case Principal, Khalsa National Girls Inter College, after accepting the application is obliged to forward the same to the District Education Officer. 3 The said Rule, however, provides that such duty is to be discharged by the District Education Officer on or before 30th August of the year. The learned Judge further noticed that the said Rule provides that the District Education Officer is obliged to forward the application to the appellant on or before 15th September. The appellant did not contend in the counter affidavit filed to the writ petition nor has contended in the instant appeal that either the competent authority, namely, Principal Khalsa National Girls Inter College or the District Education Officer concerned failed to discharge their such statutory obligations within the time mentioned in the statute. That being the situation, the logical conclusion would be that the appellant was aware immediately after 5th September, 2009 that the application of respondent No.1 is belated by one day. Despite that, it did nothing to reject the application of the respondent No.1, instead it permitted the Principal Khalsa National Girls Inter College to issue an admit card to respondent No.1 and thereby clearly held out that respondent No.1 is otherwise entitled to sit in the ensuing examination. Having, thus, represented to respondent No.1, the appellant could not hold out contrary to such representation after the respondent No.1 had sat in all the papers of the said examination on the strength of the said admit card. On the logic, as above, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition. We have not been persuaded by the learned counsel for the appellant to take a contrary view. 4. The learned Single Judge has imposed costs on the appellant for having had acted in the manner depicted above. Appellant has expressed grievance in respect thereof. We think that it is high time for the appellant to mend its way and to act in the manner which is fair to all and sundry. In the event we interfere with the costs, which has been imposed on the appellant, that would be causing injustice to respondent No.1 who went through trauma for having not received the result despite having had appeared in 4 the examination and was ultimately forced to take recourse to legal remedy, as was available. 5. We, accordingly, refuse to interfere with imposition of costs. We, however, make it clear that the appellant shall be entitled to recover the costs awarded by the judgment and order under appeal from such person or persons who created the situation. 6. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. (U.C. Dhyani, J.) ( Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 31.10.2011 31.10.2011 P. Singh