Babita Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 42 MP

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                  AT J A B A L P U R
                                          BEFORE
             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
                                    CHIEF JUSTICE
                                                &
               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
                                        nd
                        ON THE 2             OF JANUARY, 2023

                      WRIT PETITION No. 12871 of 2015

BETWEEN:-

BABITA LODHI D/O SHRI MULAYAM SINGH
LODHI, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
AND POST ANANTPURA TEHSIL- DEORI
DISTRICT SAGAR (M.P)

                                                                          ..... PETITIONER

(BY SHRI PARAG TIWARI - ADVOCATE )

AND

1.      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
        THROUGH    PRINCIPAL   SECRETARY
        DEPARTMENT      OF     EDUCATION
        MANTRALAYA, VALLABH BHAWAN (M.P.)

2.      M.P. BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
        THROUGH ITS SECRETARY BHOPAL
        DISTRICT BHOPAL (M.P.)

                                                                       ..... RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI HARPREET SINGH RUPRAH - ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
GENERAL FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This petition coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri
Justice Vishal Mishra, passed the following:
                                        2




                                ORDER

The petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the action on the part of respondents whereby the petitioner despite the fact that she appeared for the first time in D.Ed second year exam and it could be first attempt to appear in supplementary examination. She has been deprived of participating in the supplementary examination which was going to be held on 06.08.2015.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that she is a regular student of D.Ed 2012-2013 session. She cleared the first year examination in 2013 and got admission in D.Ed second year. She appeared in main examination in 2014 but was declared as 'fail' in one subject (SEC. LANG. ENG & ITS TEACH). The right of the petitioner for appearing in supplementary examination is still open owing to the fact that some other students have been granted second attempts to appear in supplementary examination. The respondents have not permitted the petitioner to appear in supplementary examination. Therefore, the present petition has been preferred.

3. Counsel appearing for respondent by filing reply to the petition has pointed out that the controversy involved herein is squarely covered by a judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the bunch of writ petitions, the main petition being W.P No.2771 of 2017 (Surendra Rawat Vs. The Board of Secondary Education and another) and other connected matters wherein it is categorically held that the D.Ed programme is of two academic years and students are required to complete the programme within a period of three years from the date of admission. The petitioner could not complete the course within three years. Therefore, she could not be permitted to appear in second year

supplementary examination. Therefore, no relief can be extended to the petitioner.

4. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

5. It is not disputed by the counsel for either party that the controversy has considered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Surendra Rawat (supra). The Hon'ble Division Bench in the aforesaid case as held as under:-

" (8) In the case at hand, trouble started when the Board, which is an examining body, on the basis of its decision dated 17.12.2012 started denying the students from completing the course within three years by denying them an opportunity to appear in examination after the second chance. The relevant clauses which have created the embargo are:

^^1- fcUnq dzekad 6%& l= 2012&2013 ls Mh-,M-

izFke o"kZ ds Nk=ksa dks ijh{kk mRrh.kZ djus gsrq vc dsoy fujUrj nks volj ^eq[; rFkk vuqxkeh ijh{kk^ iznku fd;s tkosaxsA ;fn vH;FkhZ nks fujUrj voljksa dk ykHk ysus ds mijkar Hkh izFke o"kZ vFke f}rh; o"kZ dh ijh{kk eas vuqRrh.kZ jgrk gS rks vH;FkhZ dks iqu% izos'k ysdj fu/kkZfjr ikB~;dze iw.kZ djuk gksxkA 2- fcUnq dzekad 9%& Mh ,M ijh{kk esa dksbZ Hkh O;fDr Lok/;k;h mEehnokj ds :i esa ugha cSB ldsxk] fdUrq izFke ,oa f}rh; o"kZ ds fu;fer izf'k{k.kkFkhZ dks tks izFke volj dh ijh{kk esa vuqRrh.kZ gks x;k gks] ;k U;wure mifLFkfr dk izfr'kr iwjk djus ds i'pkr~ Hkh fdUgha vifjgk;Z dkj.kksa ls ijh{kk esa u cSB ldk gks rks mls Lok/;k;h :i ls ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gksus gsrq mlh l= dh vuqxkeh ijh{kk esa dsoy ,d volj vksj fn;k tkosxkA^^

Counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the fact that the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Surendra Rawat (supra) squarely covers the controversy involved in this petition.

6. As the controversy is squarely covered and admitted position being that the petitioner could not complete the course within a period of three years, no relief can be extended to the petitioner.

7. The petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

              (RAVI MALIMATH)                              (VISHAL MISHRA)
               CHIEF JUSTICE                                   JUDGE
prar




              Digitally signed
              by PRARTHANA
              SURYAVANSHI
              Date:
              2023.01.09
              11:15:59 +05'30'