( 1 ) 0 % W 0 7 ” z 3 m m 1 ” m e w u i i ’ n a ‘ » : 1 ? 1 € 1 L 1 N T H E H O N ’ B L E H I G H C O U R T O F C H H A T T I s G A R H A T B I L A S P U R ( c . G . ) w . P . ( C ) N o . N g 3 o f 2 0 1 1 P E T I T I O N E R : S a n d h y a T a w a d k a r , D / o S h r i L a x m i N a r a y a n T a w a d k a r , a g e d a b o u t 1 9 y e a r s , R / o N e a r H e a d P o s t O f f i c e , R a j e n d r a N a g a r , B i l a s p u r , D i s t r i c t - B i l a s p u r ( C . G . ) V E R S U S / : 1 . S t a t e o f C h h a t t i s g a r h : T h r o u g h S e c r e t a r y S c h o o l E d u c a t i o n D e p a r t m e n t , D . K . S . B h a w a n R a i p u r ( C . G . ) 2 . / C h h a t t i s g a r h B o a r d o f S e c o n d a r y E d u c a t i o n , t h o u g h t h e S e c r e t a r y , P e n s i o n b a d a R a i p u r ( C . G . ) R E S P O N D E N T S 3 . J a g r i t i H i g h e r S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l , M a n g l a , T h r o u g h t h e P r i n c i p a l , M a n g l a , B i l a s p u r , d i s t r i c t B i l a s p u r ( C G ) 4 . L a t e D e v i d a y a l S a h u E d u c a t i o n S o c i e t y , N a v g a w a n o B l o c k - B a l o d a , D i s t r i c t - J a n j g i r — C h a m p a ( C . G . ) ‘ R e g i s t e r e d u n d e r t h e C h h a t t i s g a r h S o c i e t i e s R e g i s t r a t i o n A c t 1 9 7 3 ( R e g i s t r a t i o n N o . 3 8 0 7 ) t h r o u g h t h e a u t h o r i z e d s i g n a t o r y , R e g i s t e r e d O f f i c e a t N a v g a w a n , B l o c k — B a l o d a , D i s t r i c t - J a n j g i r - C h a m p a ( C . G . ) a 5 . G o v e r n m e n t H i g h e r S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l , t h r o u g h t h e P r i n c i p a l , D a y a l b a n d , B i l a s p u r , D i s t r i c t - B i l a s p u r ( C . G . ) 6 . C h h a t t i s g a r h S t a t e O p e n S c h o o l , R a i p u r , t h r o u g h t h e S e c r e t a r y , 2 v / O l d D i r e c t o r P u b l i c I n s t r u c t i o n < 2 ) y O f f i c e B u i l d i n g , P e n s i o n b a d a , R a i p u r ( C . G . ) W R I T P E T I T I O N U N D E R A R T I C L E 2 2 6 O F T H E C O N S T I T U T I O N O F I N D I A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AF^> HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (C) No. 1142 of2011 Yogeshwar Prasad Gendhley. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (C) No. 1499 of 2011 Sandhya Tawadkar VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (C) No. 1559 of2011 Aman Mittal. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. Post for pronouncement ofjudgment & order on ...7..day ofMay, 2011. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge \\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT_PETITIQN (Q^ N_a 1142 of2011 Yogeshwar Prasad Gendhley. VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh & Others. Present: Shri Azad Siddique, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Govemment Advocate with Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri H.B.Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 and 3. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRJT PETITION CC) No. 1499 of20 U ' Sandhya Tawadkar VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. Present: Shri Prateek Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Government Advocate with Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri R.S.Patel, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (Q No. 1559 of2011 Aman Mittal. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. Present: Shri Prateek Sharma, Advocate for flie petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Govemment Advocate with Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri R.S.Patel, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. 1. 2. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE. 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'bleShriSatishK. Aemhotrijr. ^. (Delivered on ..}... .'day ofMay,2011) Since the facts and question of law involved in this batch of petitions viz. W.P. (C) No. 1142, 1499 and 1559 of 2011 are identical, they are being considered and disposed of by this common order. The petitioner, in W.P(C) No. 1142/2011 and W.P.(C) No. 1559/2011 are aggrieved by order dated 09.02.2011 (Annexure P/3) and 22.12.2010 (AnnexureP/1) respectively, whereby the petitioners have been declined permission to appear in the class XII examination on the ground that they have passed High School Certificate Examination from an institaite recognized by the Board of Higher Secondary Examination, Delhi, which was de- recognized by the Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education, Raipur (for short 'the C.G. Board'). In W.P. (C) No.1499/2011, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to treat his Class X examination certificate (Annexure P/3) as recognized and valid for the purpose of appearing in examination of Higher Secondary School Certificate examination. 3. The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioners are that the petitioner (in W.P. (C) No. 1142/2011) had taken admission in Govemment Higher Secondary School, Baitalpur, District Bilaspur in class XI after passing class X firom Maa Annadhari Senior Secondary School, Paharia, District Janjgir-Champa which was 4. duly affiliated with the Board of Secondary Education, DeUii, Rajputana Lal Bhawan, Gopalpur Village (Timarpur) Post Azadpur, New Delhi - 9 (for short 'the Delhi Board'). The C.G. Board, vide memo dated 22.01.2007 (Annexure P/5 to W.P.(C) No. 1559/2011), has issued Book No. 216 regarding eligibility and recognition whereby the Principals of the recognized institutes of CKhattisgarh have been directed to admit students in class XII on the basis of eligibility certificate granted by the recognized Boards only. A list was also annexed as Annexure A, whereunder the Board of Secondary Education, Delhi, was held as recognized for High School Examination. The respondent-C.G. Board, by order dated 25.09.2009, de-recognized the equalization certificate granted to the Board ofHigher Secondary Education, Delhi, on the basis ofletterNo. D.E.23(4)/Scale/Branch/2246, dated 16.06.2009, ofthe Education Department ofthe Govemment ofDelhi, wherein it was stated that the Delhi Board was not a recognized instihite. Further, by order dated 18.10.2010, it was clarified that the recognition for equalization has been cancelled by order dated 25.09.2009 for the academic session 2009-2010 -w.e.f. 16.6.2009. Shri Azad Siddique and Shri Prateek Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners would submit that the petitioner (in W.P.(C) No, 1142/2011) was admiUed to class XI at Govemment Higher Secondary School, Baitalupur, District Bilaspur and thereafter, he was admitted to class XII. The petitioners in (W.P (C.) No. 1499/2011 and 1559/2011) have passed Class X examination from Maa Annadhari Senior Secondary School, Paharia, District Janjgir Champa which was also affiliated and recognized by the DeUii Board. The petitioners were to appear in the Class XII examination to be held on 01.04.2011, but, by the impugned order dated 09.02.2011 (in W.P. (C) No. 1142/2011) and 22.12.2010 (in W.P. (C) No. 1559/2011), the admission of the petitioners to Class XII was cancelled on the ground that the recognition of the Delhi Board, was cancelled by order dated 25.09.2009 w.e.f. lst.july, 2009. In W.P.(C) No. 1499/2011, thepetitioner was not granted form for appearing in class XII examination. The petitioners obtained High School Examination certificate prior to issue ofcircular dated 25.09.2009 and as such, the impugned circular dated 25.09.2009, would not be applicable in the case of the petitioners. Book No.216 issued on 22.01.2007 clearly provides for recognition of Delhi Board. It cannot be held that the petitioners have obtained Class X examination certificate from any unrecognized institute Thus, the petitioners may be permitted to write the examination of Class XII for the academic session 2010-2011. 5. On the other hand, Shri H.B.Agrawal, leamed senior counsel, with Smt. Meera Jaiswal and Shri R.S.Patel, leamed counsel for the respondent-C.G. Board would submit that the petitioners have obtained class X examination certificate fi-om the institutes which were recognized by the Delhi Board and as such, all the certificates issued by the Delhi Board, was not recognized even before the order dated 25.09.2009. Thus, even ifthe petitioners have obtained ~ High School Examination Certificate from the institute recognized by the Delhi Board, the petitioners would not be permitted to appear in the Class XII examination. Having heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, perused pleadings and documents appended thereto, on perusal ofthe order dated 25.09.2009, it is found that the Delhi Board, was not recognized after the order dated 17.6.2009 issued by the Education Department, Govemment of Delhi. It is not clear asto whether the Delhi Board was recognized prior to that or not. However, the second part of the circular dated 25.09.2009 provides for withdrawal of the recognition of the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi. The order dated 18.10.2010 provides for applicability ofthe order dated 25.09.2009 v/.e.f. 16.6.2009. Thus, it appears to be clear that before 16.6.2009, the Delhi Board was duly recognized for equalization. The letter dated 25.09.2009 (Amiexure P/l to W.P.(C) No. 1499/2011), reads asunder: "ftren f^TFT ftroft W^>K ynT •Hpfcllcl^. Kc^\ -54 ^ 1TO 'CT A^. 23 (4)/^cT ^TT^T/2246, f^Veii 17.06-09 ^ ST^WR ^U 3f\V ^TER ^vsf\ X^5^?FT, fStc^ •<|ul1dl-1l cITeT 'fR^T. 7ftqray ITT? (RllK^) afiuiiy,'!. ^ Riwfl - 9 cpt tesft w^r? ^ RreiT f^'iFr ^ ii"i<tii ffp<r ;r€f 11 'TR^ W'iTTET:T R'hl'tf 4dl<?11. 'qTCtT •tf'<*l'< ^ T^ 'blf'h ^.S.-l 9.04.04 T^T.^ft-^ 3 ^ f^roft R-1t'<h 24 '•TqX? 2008 4 ^re vre; ftiw 'r'n R) "The Board ofHigher Secondary Education, Karkarduma Village, New Delhi is neither established nor recognized bythe Govt. of India" 3farf(T -syg ~ww ai^lpi* wwn 11 31(T: fa>rT/?iV/d iflUiftlrf, ftjsn ffaseT ^f^ 3fJW g7?7 ^asit VU^I^^H ficvft ^t SJ^ T^cf V^tflT ^t #'/*«rf/ fPtTJfT ^Tcft f fTSJT ll&llP)* fimT 1VScT 775J7 ^ s7t7 VWTf^KT iB uBi; 8. 9. ^oftrv 'iRil^l&ivf ^ f^v arar^ ^St umft The respondent-C.G. Board in its retum (filed in W.P.(C) No. 1142/2011), has categorically stated that C.G. Board has withdrawn the recognition by fixing a cut off date as 16.06.2009, for the academic year 2009-2010 therefore, irrespective of the passing of the High School Examination in any year, certificate of Delhi Board cannot be recognized onwards. The same reads as under: "8.2...it is clear that recognition ofDeihi Board has been wifhdrawn by the answering respondents by a fixing cut of date as 16.6.2009 i.e. academic year 2009-10 therefore irrespective ofpassing high school examination from Delhi Board in any year the certificate ofDeIhi Board can not be recognized onwards that cut off date the circular dated 30.07.2009andl8.10.2010." On further pemsal of the Book No. 216, which provides for equalization, it is clear that the Delhi Board was recognized by the Chhattisgarh Board. Thus, it cannot be held that all the examination certificates issued by the Delhi Board and obtained by the petitioners before 16.6.2009, stands de-recognized for the purpose of further admission to higher classes and thereafter ' admission to the examination. There is no dispute that the petitioners have obtained class X examination certificate from the institute duly recogaized by the Delhi Board before 16.06.2009. Thus, they cannot be denied permission to admission to the course and consequently, examination of class XII. The impugned orders ^ 7 whereby the petitioners were not permitted to write class XII examination is bad and vrtiated. 10. This Court, in another case i.e. Amit Kindo & Others v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Others wherein identical question was involved, has taken a similar view and observed as imder: "In the light of the above, this writ petition is fmally disposed of with a direction 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 the impugned order dated 25.09.2009 (Annexiire P/l) because the aforesaid order would not be relatable to the case of the petitioners." 11. In view of the above and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the respondent-C.G. Board is directed to pennit the petitioners to admission to the course and participate in the class-XII examination, ifthey have obtained the class-X certificate from the Delhi Board, before 16.06.2009. 12. Accordingly, all the above writ petitions are allowed. There shall be no order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ' W.P.(C) No. 364/2011, decided on 23.02.2011