Shaikh Mohmed Sameer Ahmed Khaled ... vs Maharashtra State Board Of ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 502 Bom

                                      1           50-WP-9958-16.odt


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                  WRIT PETITION NO.9958 OF 2016

Shaikh Mohmed Sameer Ahmed
Khaled Ahmed, 
Age : 17 years (minor),
Occ. Education,
Through his father Shaikh 
Khaled Ahmed, Age : 45 years,
Occ. Labourer, 
r/o. Shukrawar Peth,
Basmath, Tq. asmath,
Dist. Hingoli                                      ..Petitioner

              Vs.

1. Maharashtra State Board of
   Secondary and Higher Secondary
   Education, Aurangabad Division,
   Aurangabad, through its
   Divisional Secretary

2. The Head Master,
   Saniya Urdu High School,
   Shukrawar Peth, Basmat,
   Tq. Basmat, Dist. Hingoli                       ..Respondent

                         --
Mr.P.G.Rodge, Advocate for petitioner

Ms.Surekha Mahajan, Advocate for respondent no.1

Mr.S.S.Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent no.2
                         --

                                CORAM :  T.V. NALAWADE AND
                                         SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ. 

DATE : MARCH 06, 2017

2 50-WP-9958-16.odt

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per T.V.Nalawade, J.):

Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally

with the consent of the learned Counsels for the

parties.

2. This petition is filed for giving

directions to the respondents to correct the

result of the petitioner for 10th standard

examination which was held in March, 2016. A

prayer is also made to set aside the communication

dated 03.08.2016 sent by respondent no.1 - Board.

3. It appears that the petitioner had

appeared for 10th standard examination in March,

2015. In that attempt, he failed in three subjects

i.e. Marathi, Mathematics and Science and

Technology by obtaining 26 marks, 22 marks and 26

marks, respectively. He appeared in another

examination held in July, 2015 and was declared

passed in Marathi subject by securing 40 marks.

However, he again failed in Mathematics and

3 50-WP-9958-16.odt

Science and Technology subjects. The petitioner

again appeared for the examination with said

subjects in March, 2016 and declared failed in

Marathi.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner

submits that as per the Rules, since the

petitioner had secured 40 marks in Marathi subject

in the examination held in July-2015, he should

have been exempted for that subject. He submits

that in the mark-sheet of March-2016 examination,

the petitioner was shown exempted for the other

subjects i.e. Urdu, English and Social Science,

however, was shown failed in the Marathi subject.

The said mark-sheet further shows that the

petitioner secured 29 marks in Mathematics and 50

marks in Science and Technology subjects. He got

benefit of the rule of clubbing the marks for

Mathematics subject. It appears that in the mark-

sheet of March-2016 examination, though the

petitioner secured 29 marks in Mathematics, he was

4 50-WP-9958-16.odt

declared passed in Mathematics, however, for

Marathi subject the marks of the petitioner were

shown as 20 and he was again declared as failed in

that subject. Due to this circumstance, a

representation was made to the respondent - Board.

5. It appears that during inquiry, it

transpired that the School had committed a

mistake. The School had conducted oral

examination of the petitioner in March-2016 for

Marathi subject, in which the petitioner was given

20 marks and those marks were shown in the mark-

sheet. The respondent - Board has given reason

that due to Rule 54, the previous exemption given

for Marathi subject cannot be considered as the

petitioner was shown as a candidate appeared for

March-2016 examination.

6. The submissions made by both sides show

that the respondent - Board has a scheme of

improvement of performance and a candidate, if

5 50-WP-9958-16.odt

secures 35 or more marks and wants to improve his

performance, he can again appear for the same

subject. For that, a candidate is required to

fill-up a form. Such is not the case of the

petitioner. The petitioner was not seeking the

benefit of the scheme of improvement of

performance and as per the other Rules, the

petitioner was already exempted from appearing in

Marathi subject. If the School has conducted an

oral test by informing the Board that oral test of

the petitioner was conducted and he has secured 20

marks, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer due

the said mistake.

7. We are, therefore, of the view that the

above mistake needs to be corrected and the

respondent - Board needs to presume that the

petitioner has secured 40 marks in Marathi subject

in July-2015 examination and therefore, in March-

2016 examination, he is exempted from said subject.

After carrying out this exercise, the Board

6 50-WP-9958-16.odt

shall declare the result of the petitioner

accordingly and issue a corrected mark-sheet.

8. Rule is made absolute accordingly. The

Writ Petition stands disposed of in the above

terms.

[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]

kbp