Vijay Shivaji Rodge vs Maharashtra State Board Of ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 7485 Bom

                                             1           34-wp8075.odt


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                            
                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                    
                       WRIT PETITION NO.8075 OF 2016

    Vijay s/o. Shivaji Rodge,
    Age : 18 years, Occ.Education,
    r/o. Ridhora, Tq. Shengaon,




                                                   
    Dist. Hingoli                                       ..Petitioner

                   Vs.




                                           
    1. Maharashtra State Board of
       Secondary and Higher Secondary
       Education, Pune,
                               
       Latur Division Board, Latur

    2. Maharashtra Junior College,
                              
       Majage Nagar, Latur,
       Tq. and Dist. Latur
       (Respondent no.2 deleted
       as per order dated 08.8.16)                      ..Respondents
      


                             --
   



    Mr.D.M.Shinde, Advocate for petitioner

    Mr.Surekha Mahajan, Advocate for respondent no.1
                             --





                                     CORAM :  R.M. BORDE AND
                                              SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ. 

DATE : DECEMBER 20, 2016 ORAL JUDMENT :

Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

With the consent of the parties, the petition is

2 34-wp8075.odt

taken up for final disposal at the admission

stage.

3. The petitioner is praying for quashment

of the communication/order issued by respondent

no.1 on 17.06.2016 rejecting the request made by

the petitioner on 14.06.2016 for issuance of the

revised mark memo of H.S.C. examination.

4.

The petitioner had appeared for H.S.C.

examination conducted by respondent/Board in

February, 2015. The petitioner secured 397 marks

out of total 650 marks. The petitioner could not

reach the benchmark of 50% marks in P.C.B. group.

As such, availing the facility declared by the

board for improvement of performance, the

petitioner appeared for H.S.C. Examination in

October, 2015 again. The petitioner secured more

than 50% marks in October, 2015 examination.

However, he failed to exercise his option to claim

revised mark memo within one month from the date

of declaration of the result or within six months

3 34-wp8075.odt

from the date of declaration, subject to payment

of amount prescribed by the board.

5. The petitioner approached the board by

tendering an application on 14.06.2016 and

requested for issuance of a revised mark memo of

H.S.C. Examination conducted in October, 2015. The

request made by the petitioner has been turned

down by the board relying upon the policy framed

by the board on 03.11.2012. The policy prescribed

by the board mandates a candidate seeking to

improve his performance, to exercise his option

within one month of the declaration of result. It

is further prescribed that a candidate is entitled

to exercise his option after lapse of one month

from the date of declaration of result, subject to

payment of penalty of Rs.100/-. It is further

prescribed that a candidate is also entitled to

exercise his option upto six months from the date

of declaration of the result subject to payment of

penalty of Rs.200/-.

4 34-wp8075.odt

6. In the instant petition, the petitioner

tendered the application on 14.06.2016, which is

beyond the period of six months. As such, placing

reliance upon the policy framed by the board, the

request of the petitioner has been turned down by

the board. The petitioner has reappeared for the

H.S.C. examination in October, 2015 with a view to

improve his performance and is successful in

crossing the benchmark of 50% in P.C.B. group.

7. The request made by the petitioner for

issuing revised mark memo should not have been

turned down merely on account of technical

reasons. The object behind prescribing the policy

by the board to permit a candidate to reappear for

H.S.C. examination is to facilitate him to improve

his performance so that he becomes eligible to

compete for admission to professional courses. The

said object ought to be taken into consideration

while interpreting the policy. The insistence on

exercise of option by a candidate to claim revised

5 34-wp8075.odt

mark memo within one month from the date of

declaration of result or after one month upto six

months, subject to payment of penalty shall have

to be construed liberally. The relevant policy

declared by the board, which mandates a candidate,

facilitating him to reappear for the H.S.C.

examination with a view to improve his

performance, and to exercise his option within six

months from the date of declaration of the result

to claim revised marks memo shall have to be

considered as directory and strict compliance of

the time frame prescribed under the policy of the

board shall not be insisted upon. The petitioner

has approached the board seeking the revised mark

memo merely one month late beyond the time frame

prescribed by the board. Considering the object

behind the policy formulated by board, the time

frame prescribed for exercise of option shall have

to be extended in given facts and circumstances of

case.

6 34-wp8075.odt

8. In view of above, we are of the

considered opinion that the instant petition

deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly

allowed. The communication issued by the board on

17.06.2016 rejecting the application of the

petitioner dated 14.06.2016 for issuance of the

revised mark memo of H.S.C. Examination conducted

in October, 2015, is quashed and set aside. The

respondent - board is directed to issue a revised

mark memo of the examination conducted in October,

2015, to the petitioner forthwith.

9. The petitioner undertakes to deposit

necessary charges/fees/penalty with the board.

10. Rule made absolute accordingly. There

shall be no order as to costs.

[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [R.M. BORDE, J.] kbp