Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sargam Janghela vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 March, 2022
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
&
SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 14th OF MARCH, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 154 of 2021
Between:-
SARGAM JANGHELA S/O DEVENDRA KUMAR
JANGHELA , AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: STUDENT GRAM POST LIMRUA,
TESHIL DISTT. MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI GAUTAM PRASAD, ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THRO.
SECRETARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SECRETARY BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
SHIVAJI NAGAR BHOPAL, M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. ACM COLLEGE OF EDUCATION THRO. PRINCIPAL
BALAGHAT ROAD SEONI, M,P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PIYUSH DHARMADHIKARI, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE
FOR RESPONDENT NO.1/STATE, SHRI JUBIN PRASAD FOR
RESPONDENT NO.2 AND SHRI AKHILESH JAIN FOR RESPONDENT
NO.3.)
This petition coming on for admission this day, JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
passed the following:
ORDER
In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner has assailed the order dated 20.10.2020 and 04.12.2020, Annexure P-5
and P-7, respectively.
In short, the relevant facts are that the petitioner was a student of Diploma of
Elementary Education, a two years Course, extendable upto three years. The
petitioner successfully passed the first year, which is clear from mark-sheet
Signature Not Verified
Annexure P-1. The problem arose in the second year because in the main internal
SAN
Digitally signed by SWETA SAHU
examination petitioner did not participate. Thus, mark-sheet Annexure P-3 shows
Date: 2022.03.15 13:41:14 IST
him absent in internal examination and resultantly, declares him as "failed".
The petitioner's case is that he subsequently appeared in the supplementary
internal examination and cleared it. The petitioner's College/respondent No.3 was
required to sent the marks online to respondent No.2 on or before 04-11-2019, but
they sent the marks online only on 04.12.2019. Since marks were sent online after
the cut-off date i.e. on 04.11.2019, by impugned order the respondent No.2
declined to record those marks and give him the desired benefit.
Shri Gautam Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner passed the supplementary internal examination with flying colours. If
respondent No.3 has committed any error or caused delay, he cannot be made to
suffer. If petitioner is deprived from the fruits of internal examination because of
alleged delay on the part of respondent No.3, the petitioner will be deprived to
even reap the benefit of first year's success and he will have to take the entire
course afresh.
Learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on a judgment of
Kerala High Court in W.P. (C) No.22349/2020 (P) Nihal Aboobacker &
another vs. The Director, National Institute of Open Schooling & Others
decided on 01.02.2021, submits that the petitioner was not at fault. If respondent
No.3 has committed some mistake or delay, petitioner may not be deprived from
the benefit of his efforts made in the supplementary internal examination.
Shri Jubin Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the said
judgment is distinguishable because in that case the respondent/Institution sent the
online information within time, which for technical defects, could not be registered.
Promptly thereafter, the Institution sent off-line information well within time.
Whereas, in the instant case respondent No.3 did not furnish information on or
before the cut-off date i.e. 04.11.2019.
Shri Akhilesh Jain, learned counsel for respondent No.3 supported the case
of the petitioner and urged that the petitioner appeared in the internal examination
and cleared it within time. The delay was unintentional and, therefore, as a special
case this Court may take a lenient view.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated above.
We have heard the parties at length and perused the record.
Digitally signed by SWETA SAHU
Date: 2022.03.15 13:41:14 IST
It is not in dispute that petitioner has passed the internal examination in
supplementary. The sole reason for not giving him the fruits of such examination is
non-submission of marks online on or before 04.11.2019. Indisputably the
petitioner cannot be held responsible for the belated information sent by
respondent No.3. In the peculiar facts of this case, in our opinion it will be a
travesty of justice if petitioner is denied the fruits of his examination which he has
admittedly cleared in the supplementary. The respondent No.3's inaction or delay
should not result in sealing the fate of a young student.
Considering the aforesaid, we deem it proper to direct the respondent No.2
to accept the prayer of respondent No.3 and issue a fresh mark-sheet on the basis
of supplementary internal examination marks of Second Year. The entire exercise
be completed within 30 days from the date of production of copy of this order.
The order passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case shall
not be treated as a precedent.
The petition is allowed.
(SUJOY PAUL) (DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
ss
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by SWETA SAHU
Date: 2022.03.15 13:41:14 IST
