1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Appeal (MD) No.1206 & 1207 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).Nos.2 & 2 of 2011 1.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-6. 2.The Regional Deputy Director, (Government Examinations), Regional Deputy Director Office, Madurai -2. ... Appellants 1 & 2 in W.A.(MD).No.1206/2011 and appellants in W.A.(MD).No.1207/2011 3.The Director of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai. ... 3rd appellant in W.A.(MD).No.1206 of 2011 Vs. 1.M.Krishnamoorthy ... 1st respondent in both the writ appeals/ petitioners in both the writ petitions 2.The Correspondent, St. Anne's Higher Secondary School, Peiyakulam, Theni District. ... 2nd respondent in both the writ appeals 3.The Principal, Thangamuthu Polytechnic College, Periyakulam - 625 604. Theni District. ... 3rd respondent in W.A.(MD).No.1206/2011 Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order dated 30.11.2010 made in W.P.(MD). Nos.12321 & 3548 of 2010 by the learned Single Judge of this Court. WP(MD)No.3548/2010:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to permit the petitioner's son namely Vikash ti write the X Public Exam and pass such further or other order as to this Court may deem fit and prayer. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 WP(MD)No.12321 of 2010:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the Second respondent in Na.Ka.No.42294/Aa.6/2010 dated 1.2.2010 quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents 1 and 2 to furnish the SSLC Mark Sheet statement of the petitioner's son bearing the Registration No.234384. For appellants in both the writ appeals .. Mr.K.Mahendran, Special Government Pleader COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by K.N.BASHA, J.) The writ appeals have been preferred by the appellants challenging the common order of the writ Court, dated 30.11.2010, made in W.P.(MD).Nos.3548 & 12321 of 2010 allowing the writ petitions preferred by the petitioner/first respondent herein and consequently directing the official respondents to publish the final results of the petitioner's son and provide the mark sheet within a time frame of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 2.Mr.K.Mahendran, learned Special Government Pleader would contend that as the first respondent's son has not completed 14-1/2 years of age as on 01.04.2010, he is not eligible to write 10th standard public examination. It is contended that as per Rule, the age was prescribed to be 14-1/2 years. The learned Special Government Pleader placed reliance on G.O.Ms.No.192, dated 25.02.1992, wherein the minimum age for writing E.S.L.C., S.S.L.C. and Higher Secondary Examinations was reduced to 12- 1/2 years, 14-1/2 years and 16-1/2 years respectively. It is contended by the learned Special Government Pleader that in the said order, it is made clear that there is no need to give any further relaxation of minimum age either by the Director or by the Government in future. Therefore, the learned Special Government Pleader would contend that the writ Court has ignored the said G.O. and allowed the writ petitions directing the official respondents to publish the final results of the first respondent's son and provide mark sheet within a time frame. 3.We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and also perused the order passed by the writ Court and other materials available on record. 4.The fact remains that the writ Court has considered all the points raised by both sides and ultimately arrived at a conclusion that the first respondent's son is entitled to the publication of the final results and receipt of the mark sheets. It is pertinent to note that even in respect of the age, it is categorically stated by the first respondent that his son has completed the age of 14-1/2 years on the date of examination i.e., on 23.03.2010. The writ Court has categorically held that such contention of the first respondent is more convincing even in respect of the age factor. It is also pointed out by the writ Court that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, the first respondent's son appeared in the examination and also succeeded by securing 293 marks out of 500 and that the first respondent's son cannot be made to suffer on technical grounds. It is also seen that the appellants have not placed reliance on any statutory rules against the first respondent's son for his entitlement of the publication of results and receiving the mark sheets. 5.In view of the above factors, we are unable to see any illegality or infirmity in the order of the writ Court. Accordingly, the writ appeals are hereby dismissed. However, we make it clear that the said order cannot be the precedent for any other matter, as each matter has to be decided on the basis of the peculiar facts and circumstances. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (T&P) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-6. 2.The Regional Deputy Director, (Government Examinations), Regional Deputy Director Office, Madurai -2. 3.The Director of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai. + 1 cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR No.39526 Common Judgment in W.A (MD) Nos.1206 & 1207 of 2011 11.11.2011 gcg RJ/1.12.11 3p/5c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/