Sacchidanand S/O Rajabhau ... vs Maharashtra State Board Of ...
2002 Latest Caselaw 629 Bom

JUDGMENT

R.M. Lodha, J.

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Returnable forthwith.

3. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel waives service for respondent No.l.

4. Mr. Ghute Patil, learned counsel waives service for respondent No.2.

5. Mr. Shinde, learned A.G.P. waives service for respondent No.3.

6. By consent, Rule is heard finally at this stage.

7. This writ petition irrespective of the stand sought to be set up by the learned counsel for respondent No. l namely Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary School Education, Latur (for short Divisional Board) that there was error in the declaration of petitioners result in Secondary School Certificate Examination (S.S.C.) declared in June 1999 has to be allowed in view of the fact that the said result of examination was sought to be effected almost after two years which is not permissible under Regulation 55.

8.Regulation 55 of the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards Regulations, 1977 (for short Regulations, 1977) provides for publication of results which reads thus :

"(1) The Divisional Board shall declare ordinarily in the month of June and January every year results of candidates who have appeared for the Secondary School Certificate examination held in March or April and October or November respectively, on such dates and in such manner as the State Board may decide.

(2) In any case where it is found that the result of the examination has been affected by error, malpractice, fruad, improper conduct or other matter of whatsoever nature, the Divisional Board on the recommendation of the Standing Committee shall have power to amend such result in such manner as shall be in accord with the true position and to make such declaration as it may consider necessary in that behalf, provided that, except as provided in clause (3) below, no result shall be amended after the expiration of six months from the date of declaration of the result.

(3) In any case where the result of the examination has been ascertained and declared and it is found that such result has been affected by any malpractice, fraud or any other improper conduct whereby an examinee has, in the opinion of the Standing Committee, been a party to or privy to, or connived at such malpractice, fraud or improper conduct, the Divisional Board, on the recommendation of the Standing Committee, shall have power at any, notwithstanding the issue of the Secondary School Certificate or the award of a prize or scholarship, to amend the result of such examinee and to make such declaration as it may consider necessary in that behalf.

(4) The answer-book of a candidate found guilty of any malpractice, fraud or any other improper conduct, considered under Regulation 44 or clause (3) above, shall be liable to be destroyed along with every paper and document in connection with such enquiry, after the expiry of a period of two years from the date on which the final decision of the Board in the matter is communicated to the candidate concerned."

9.Clause (2) of Regulation provides that if the result of the examination has been affected by error, malpractice, fraud, improper conduct or other matter of whatsoever nature, as per procedure provided therein may amend such result but no amendment in the result shall be made after the expiration of six months from the date of declaration of result, save and except in the cases covered under clause (3) of Regulation 55. The learned counsel for first respondent did not dispute that the petitioners result of examination of S.S.C. declared in the month of June 1999 is sought to be amended due to error having crept therein and for no other purpose like fruad, malpractice, improper conduct etc. In that event apparently clause (3) is not applicable and the result of the examination can only to be amended within six months from the date of declaration of result. The expression, "no result shall be amended after the expiration of six months from the date of declaration of result" is couched in mandatory form and therefore, if result of the examination in S.S.C. has been effected by error, it can only be amended within six months from the date of declaration of result and not beyond it.

10. The learned counsel for first respondent did not dispute that within six months from the date of declaration of result of the petitioner, the amendment in petitioners result has not been proposed. We find that it was only in the month of April 2001, the petitioner was notified and called upon to appear before Divisional Board alongwith his S.S.C. certificate. We are afraid, as the time of six months provided in clause (2) of Regulation 55 is mandatory, petitioners result of S.S.C. examination declared in the month of June 1999, cannot be permitted to be amended in the month of April 2001, as has been sought to be done by first respondent.

11. Rule is accordingly, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B). Prayer clause (B) reads thus :

"By issuing appropriate writ or order or directions in the nature of writ, Respondent No. 1s impugned communication dt. 21.4.2001 directing the petitioner to return and surrender his Passing Certificate of S.S.C. Examination and also corrected marks-memo dt. 17.02.2001, pertaining to March, 1999 Examination, may kindly be quashed and set aside."

12. No costs.