The Allahabad High Court has directed to give one additional chance to the candidates who have failed three times in some semesters of Diploma in Elementary Education/Basic Training Certificate examination.
A Single Bench of Justice Kshitij Shailendra passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Sakshi and 77 Others.
This is a bunch of 15 writ petitions involving identical controversy.
The case of the petitioners in all the writ petitions is to the effect that they were students of D.El.Ed/B.T.C course in different years and they cleared certain semester examinations, but failed in some papers of certain semesters.
These writ petitions have been filed with a prayer that the petitioners may be permitted to appear in the subject, in which they failed after granting them an additional chance in the aforesaid course of their respective years within a period to be specified by this Court.
Counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance upon two Circulars/Office Memoranda respectively dated 11.09.2021 and 19.04.2022, both issued by the Secretary Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P Prayagraj.
Submission of the counsel for the petitioners is that by the first Circular, candidates, who had failed thrice in one subject, but had cleared other semester examinations, were provided additional chance to appear in the examination, in which they had failed.
Further submission is that though the first Circular dated 11.09.2021 relates to the candidates of years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017 and 2018, first Semester, the subsequent Office Memorandum dated 19.04.2022 is quite general and independent in nature and facilitates granting of additional chance to all the students, who had failed thrice in any semester in one subject.
Further submission of Siddharth Khare is that while around 2000 students, identically placed, have been granted benefits of the aforesaid Circulars, the petitioners are being discriminated against and they have not been permitted by the respondents.
There is no dispute about the fact that when the petitioners failed the first time, they were granted two additional chances and even in the additional chance, they could not clear the respective examination.
However, Khare submitted that the aforesaid Circulars/Office Memoranda related to those students, who have failed thrice and, therefore, the case of the petitioners is covered by the aforesaid Circulars/Office Memoranda irrespective of their failure third time.
Ashok Mehta, Additional Advocate General as well as Chandan Kumar, Standing Counsel have vehemently opposed the petitions and though they do not dispute the validity of the Circulars/Office Memoranda, it has been argued that the Circulars clearly mention that the same were issued pursuant to the representations moved by the failed candidates and since the petitioners have not submitted any representation, they cannot be granted any benefit out of the said Circulars.
It has further been argued that a well defined syllabus has been provided for the aforesaid course and as per clause 19 thereof, candidature of the B.T.C candidates can be rejected under certain circumstances and as per sub clause (5) of clause 19, such rejection can be done if a candidate fails twice in a particular semester or thrice in a particular subject.
It has further been argued that clause 20 is a provision for preferring an appeal against rejection of such candidature.
It has further been argued that since the petitioners have not preferred any representation, they are not entitled for any relief.
Now coming to the argument advanced by the State that the Circulars were issued specifically for those candidates, who had submitted representations, the Court found that in the matter of granting permission/ relaxation facilitating one additional chance to the candidates, these Circulars/Office Memoranda cannot be interpreted in such a strict manner, in which they have been interpreted on behalf of the State respondents. Once the power to issue such Circulars, pursuant to the Government Order, has not been disputed by the respondents, these Circulars/Office Memoranda, for the purposes of case, would have the force of law, at least for the purposes of grant of relaxation to the petitioners.
The Court stated that it has also not been disputed that various candidates were accorded relaxation pursuant to the Circulars. Article 14 of the Constitution of India clearly provides that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the law within the territory of India. Once the Circulars are not under challenge and they have been emphasised and explained by the respondents and read in a particular manner which might suit them, the Court would read the Circulars as they are treating the same as valid.
Insofar as the provision of appeal under clause 20 of the syllabus is concerned, the said clause provides that appeal can be preferred within a period of 30 days from the date of issuance of order of rejection of the candidature of a particular candidate.
Admittedly, there is no order rejecting the candidature of any of the petitioners in the case and, therefore, clause 20 containing provision of appeal does not come in the way of the petitioners.
“Insofar as the role of N.C.T.E is concerned, it is confined to determine the syllabus of a particular course. Though clause 2.1 relied upon by the counsel for the N.C.T.E is with regard to completion of course within a maximum period of three years, I find that once the State Government itself clothed the Secretary of Examination Regulatory Authority with authority and power to take any decision with regard to different activities concerning the particular examination, as elaborately explained in clause 5 of the Government Order dated 27.02.2004, I do not find any ground not to extend the benefit of the aforesaid Circulars/Office Memoranda to the petitioners.
In view of aforesaid discussions, I find that by not granting additional chance to the petitioners to appear in the subject/ papers, in which they failed thrice, the petitioners have been discriminated and in the considered opinion of the Court, the petitioners are entitled to get additional chance, as prayed”, the Court observed while allowing the petitions.
Chandan Kumar has lastly vehemently argued that in case, the Court is permitting the petitioners in the bunch of these writ petitions to avail additional chance, this order may be confined to the petitioners alone, otherwise anybody who is either waiting for the result of these writ petitions or has not yet pressed his/her claim arising out of the aforesaid Circulars/Office Memoranda, would also get undue advantage. He again emphasises that the aforesaid Circulars/Office Memoranda were issued in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the situation, which was there in 2021 and 2022 on account of spread of Pandemic COVID-19.
“A writ of Mandamus is issued to the respondents to provide additional chance to the petitioners to appear in paper, in which the petitioners failed in D.El.Ed/B.T.C course, in the ensuing examination.
In view of the last argument advanced on behalf of the State, it is provided that the present judgment and order shall not be treated as a binding precedent in relation to those writ petitions which shall be filed after date of this decision and all arguments shall remain open for the State insofar as factual background of such petitions would reflect”, the order read.