1 ASWP-2836-2011 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2836 OF 2011 Onkar Ramesh Vengurlekar & ors. ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents Mr.Rahul Kulkarni with Mr. Abhaysingh Shinde for petitioners. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP for resp.no.1. Mr.R.V.Govilkar for resp.no.2. Mr.S.R.Ganabavale for resp.nos.3 and 4. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. August 20, 2011. P.C. 1. The petitioners took admissions for the Diploma Course in Engineering (Civil Engineering, Computer Engineering, IT and Mechanical Engineering etc.). They appeared for the First Semester Examination conducted by the Board in the winter 2008 and they were 2 ASWP-2836-2011 declared as passed. They appeared for the Second Semester examination held in the summer of 2009 and were declared as passed and eligible for the next semester. They appeared for the Third Semester examination held in the winter of 2009 and the result declared was “Second Class CON” and were held eligible for admission to the Fourth Semester for which they appeared in the summer of 2010. The result declared on 6/7/2010 stated, “FIRST CLASS LSP” and they were declared not eligible for the Fifth Semester. However, they came to be admitted for the Fifth Semester and they appeared for the examination held in the winter of 2010. The Board did not take any objections and declared their results on 8/2/2011 and they were successful and found eligible for admission to the Sixth Semester. However, when they filled in the form for the Sixth Semester examination, they were informed by the Respondent no.4 – College that they were not eligible to appear for the Sixth Semester examination as they had not cleared the Second Semester. The petitioners, therefore, submitted an application on 3rd March 2011 to the Respondent no.2 – Board for correcting the “LSP” remarks in the mark sheet of the Fourth Semester issued by the Board. On 2/10/2010 the Board issued a corrected mark sheet for the Second Semester examination where the earlier result of the Second Semester declared on 20/7/2009 3 ASWP-2836-2011 was altered as “ATKT – Eligible for Next Semester” as against the original result of “ “Pass – Eligible for Next Semester” and this correction was sought to be done much after the Fourth Semester Result was declared on 6/7/2010. The petitioners pointed out that the examination of the Fifth Semester was conducted in the winter of 2010 and the results were declared on 8/2/2011. They had passed in First Class and were held to be eligible for admission to the Sixth Semester. The Respondent no.4 forwarded the forms of the petitioners to the Respondent no.2 – Board for the Sixth Semester and they were received by the Board on 8th January 2011. It is contended by the petitioners that the notice dated 3/11/2010 was not displayed by the respondent no.4 – College on the notice board nor they had received any direct intimation from the Board that they were not eligible to appear for the Sixth Semester examination upto the date of declaration of examinations. It is under these circumstances that the petitioners have approached this Court praying for appropriate directions to quash and set aside the “Lower Semester Pending (LSP)” remark in the result sheet of the Fourth Semester and the remark of “ATKT” in the Second Semester result published on 2/11/2010. They also prayed for directions to the respondents to restrain them from compelling the petitioners to appear for the Second Semester examination. In the 4 ASWP-2836-2011 alternate they have prayed that they be allowed to write the Second as well as Sixth Semester examination simultaneously during the summer of 2011. 2. On 8th April 2011 this Court directed the respondent – Board to allow the petitioners to appear for the Second as well as Sixth Semester examination but without prejudice to the rights and contentions in the petition and with a clear understanding that the petitioners will not be entitled to claim any equity at the later stage. Petitioners have accordingly appeared for both the examinations and their results are ready. It was submitted by Mr.Govilkar, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 – Board that the results cannot be declared as the petitioners were not eligible for admission to the Sixth Semester and at the most their results for the second semester could be declared and those of them who have passed the second semester will have to appear for the Sixth Semester in the ensuing winter examination. He placed reliance on the Regulations and pointed out that the petitioners were not eligible for being admitted to the third Semester itself and declaring results on the basis of the concession granted to them to appear for the Second Semester and Sixth Semester simultaneously would set a wrong precedent in 5 ASWP-2836-2011 violation of the Rules. We are not impressed by this submission. As noted earlier, when the Second Semester result was declared on 20/7/2009 the petitioners were held to be eligible for admission to the next Semester as they had passed the Second Semester. On declaration of the results of the Fourth Semester, they were shown as not eligible for admission to the Fifth Semester. However, they were admitted in the Fifth Semester and they were allowed to appear for the examination in which they passed with First Class. It is for the first time that on 2/11/2010 or thereabout the result of the Second Semester was sought to be corrected and the petitioners were informed that they would not be eligible to appear for the examination of the Sixth Semester. Mr.Govilkar also referred to Regulation 9F which reads as under “F) Amendment in Declared Results : In case, the declared result of an examination is later found affected by an error (except those covered under malpractice, fraud or improper conduct); the matter shall be placed before the Special Committee for scrutiny. The Director of Board shall have the power to amend such result according to the recommendations of the Special Committee. No result shall, however, be 6 ASWP-2836-2011 amended after six months from the date of declaration of such result or after declaration of the result of the next examination at the same level, whichever is earlier.” The above Regulation is in two parts and Mr.Govilkar relied upon only the first part which appears to be convenient to the Board. But the second part very specifically states that no result shall, however, be amended after six months from the date of declaration of such result or after declaration of the next examination at the same level, which is earlier. In the instant case the result of the Second Semester was originally declared in July 2009 and after more than one year the amended result for the same Semester has been declared on the basis of which it is the contention of the Board that the petitioners were not entitled for admission to the Sixth Semester. The Regulation does not permit the Board to do so. There is no material on record to point out that the petitioners were at any time before they were admitted to the Sixth Semester, informed by the Board specifically that they had not cleared the Second Semester and this was required to be done within six months from July 2009 i.e. from the date their original result for the Second Semester was declared. As per the first part of the above Regulation, there is no 7 ASWP-2836-2011 prohibition from declaring the amended result as such but the same cannot be done unless the matter was placed before the Special Committee for scrutiny. No doubt the Board has the power to amend the said result according to the recommendations of the Special Committee and there is no material placed before us that when the respondent Board amended the result of the Second Semester in October/November 2010, it was placed before the Special Committee and the Special Committee had scrutinised it. Hence on both these counts Regulation 9F does not come in the way of declaring the results of the petitioners when they were allowed to appear by this Court for the Second and Sixth Semesters simultaneously. This Court while passing the order dated 8th April 2011 proceeded on the basis that despite the objections of the petitioners to the amended result of the Second Semester, they must appear for the Second Semester examination even if they were declared to have been passed in the results published on 20/7/2009. In our opinion, the Regulation cited by Mr.Govilkar does not come in our way to direct the Board to publish the result of the examinations held as per the order dated 8/4/2011. The students cannot be penalised for the delayed corrective actions purportedly taken by the Board. When it affects the career of the students, it is obligatory on the part of the Board that the corrective steps 8 ASWP-2836-2011 for amending the results are taken within six months from the publication of the original results. In the instant case the Board failed to do so and, therefore, the students cannot be allowed to suffer and asked to wait for another six months to write Sixth Semester even if they have passed in the Second Semester examination held in April 2011. 3. In the premises, we direct the respondent – Board to declare the results and hand over the mark sheets forthwith of the Second and Sixth Semester examination for which the petitioners appeared pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 8th April 2011. The result so declared shall be final. By way of abundant precaution we clarify that this order is passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this petition alone and it cannot be cited as a precedent in other cases. 4. The petition is partly allowed. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE,J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE,J.)