Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rigved vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 May, 2025
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13618
WP No.5601-2025 & 6592-2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 22nd OF MAY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 5601 of 2025
RIGVED
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Somesh Gobhuj - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Raghav Shrivastava- G.A. for the State.
Ms. Mini Ravindran- Advocate for the respondent No.2.
Shri Rakesh Pal- Advocate for the respondent No.3.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 6592 of 2025
PRATHAM PATIDAR S/O DEVNARAYAN PATIDAR MINOR
THROUGH NEXT FRIEND NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER
DEVNARAYAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Akhil Godha - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Raghav Shrivastava- G.A. for the respondent No.1/State.
Ms. Mini Ravindran- Advocate for the respondent No.2.
Shri Rakesh Pal- Advocate for the respondent No.3.
ORDER
1] Heard.
2] This order shall also govern the disposal of W.P. No.6592/2025,
as in both the petitions, same issue is involved. For the sake of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13618
WP No.5601-2025 & 6592-2025
convenience, the facts as narrated in W.P. No.5601/2025 are being
taken into consideration.
3] This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:-
"It is therefore prayed, that petition may kindly be allowed and by
issuing an appropriate writ, direction or order,
1. That, the respondent no. 2 may kindly be directed to issue the
admit card/ examination ticket of the petitioner (Roll no.24505930)
for upcoming Class-12th MP Board Examination which is
scheduled from 25/02/2025.
2. That, respondents may kindly be directed to take immediate
steps for issuing the admit card of the petitioner.
3. That, any other relief this Hon'ble court deems fit may kindly be
granted."
4] The petitioner's case is that he had earlier appeared in the ICSE
Board (Indian Certificate of Secondary Education), New Delhi from
N.G. Convent School, Shajapur with subjects English, Mathematics,
Physics, Chemistry and Computer Science. However, after passing the
aforesaid examination on 06.05.2024, the petitioner with a view to
improve his division, again took admission in the respondent No.3
Pioneer Public Higher Secondary School, Shajapur by submitting the
form in the month of July, 2024. The form was accepted by the
respondent No.2 Board and a dummy admit card was also issued to
the petitioner. However, at the time of practical examination, the
petitioner was informed that he cannot be allowed to sit in the
examination, as the admit card has not been issued by the M.P. Board
of Secondary Education. Thus, the present petition was filed, and on
13.02.2025, an interim order was passed by this Court directing the
respondent to allow the petitioner to participate in the practical and
written examination. It was also directed that the result of the
examination shall be subject to the final disposal of this petition.
Thereafter, the petitioner has also given the examination, and as
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13618
WP No.5601-2025 & 6592-2025
informed by the respondent No.2, he has also passed the aforesaid
examination.
5] Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not
suppressed any fact, and had submitted the application by providing
all the relevant information regarding the mark-sheet of ICSE
Examination. Reliance has also been placed on the decision rendered
by the Madras High Court in the case of Naiffa Vs Central Board of
Secondary Education, New Delhi and Others, reported as AIR 1992
MADRAS 52. Counsel has submitted that in such circumstances,
when the petitioner has already invested his entire year in studying for
Class 12th Examination, the respondents may be directed to issue the
mark-sheet to him, as he has also passed the examination
6] Counsel for the State, as also the respondent No.2, M.P. Board of
Secondary Education have vehemently opposed the prayer and it is
submitted that no case for interference is made out. Attention of this
Court has also been drawn to the Regulation No.212 of M.P. Board of
Secondary Education Regulation, 1960 and Examination Guidelines,
2015 to submit that even assuming the contention of the petitioner to
be correct, still Regulation 212 would come into play, which clearly
provides that such improvement in the result is not allowed if the
candidate has obtained his previous Certificate from any other Board.
Counsel has also submitted that otherwise also, the petitioner has
passed the earlier examination with the subjects Physics, Chemistry,
Mathematics, English and Computer Science, and in the subsequent
examination with the M.P. Board of Secondary Education, his subjects
were Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, English and Hindi, thus, the
petitioner has also given the examination in the same set of subjects as
of his previous Board. Counsel has submitted that the Division Bench
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13618
WP No.5601-2025 & 6592-2025
of this Court had already settled this dispute and has held that such
practice cannot be allowed.
7] Reference has also been made to the decision rendered by the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhanu Pratap Singh
Moury Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education, passed in W.P.
No.1565/2016 dated 12.05.2016 in which, an earlier decision rendered
by this Court in the case of Sarla (Kr.) Vs. State of M.P. reported as
1992 (II) M.P. Weekly Notes, 293 has been considered. Thus, it is
submitted that no case for interference is made out.
8] So far as the decision rendered by the High Court of Madras in
the case of Naiffa (Supra) is concerned, counsel has submitted that
the aforesaid decision was rendered on compassionate basis by giving
leeway to the petitioner, and is distinguishable, whereas, the Division
Bench of this Court has categorically held that such admission cannot
be legalised.
9] Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10] From the record, it is found that admittedly the petitioner has
initially completed his Class-XII from ICSE Board in the year 2023-
24, the result of which, was declared on 06.05.2024, in which the
petitioner had obtained Grade-B, however, with a view to improve his
grade, the petitioner got himself admitted in Pioneer Public Higher
Secondary School, Shajapur, the respondent No.3 herein, and also
paid the requisite fees of Rs.28,000/-. He was also issued a dummy
admit card, whereas, the other students were issued proper admit card,
and when enquired, the petitioner was orally informed that since he
has already passed his Class XII examination from ICSE Board,
therefore, he cannot be allowed to give M.P. Board Examination,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13618
WP No.5601-2025 & 6592-2025
which led the petitioner to file the present petition, as the exams were
scheduled from 25.02.2025.
11] This petition came up for hearing on 13.02.2025, and this Court
passed the following interim order:-
" Considering the fact that the petitioner is a Class-XII student,
and is not being allowed to participate in the practical and
written examination, and the practical examination have already
commenced from today only, it is directed to the respondents to
allow the petitioner to participate in the practical examination,
the result of which shall be subject to the final disposal of this
petition.
12] Accordingly, the petitioner also appeared in the examination
and the result was produced before this Court in a sealed envelope,
and it is found that the petitioner has already passed the said
examination with some higher marks.
13] So far as the guidelines issued by the Board of Secondary
Education is concerned, Clause 15 of the same is relevant, which
reads as under:-
"15. श्रेणी सध
ु ार के लिए प्रवेश िेने हे तु ननर्दे श
(मण्डि ववननयम की कण्ण्डका 212)
15.1 नियमित छात्र के रूप िें श्रेणी सध
ु ार/अंक सध
ु ार हे तु सत्र 2022-23
एवं 2023-24 िें केवल िाध्यमिक मिक्षा िण्डल ि.प्र. भोपाल से उत्तीणण
छात्र ही िण्डल परीक्षा िें सम्मिमलत हो सकते है । इस योजिा िें केवल
एक ही अवसर का लाभ मिलेगा। इसिें ववषय पररवतणि का लाभ िहीं
दिया जावेगा।
15.2 श्रेणी सध
ु ार िें सम्मिमलत होिे वाले छात्रों का प्रनतयोगी परीक्षाओं
िें हायर सेकेण्डरी परीक्षा के अंकों के अधधभार को दृम्टिगत रखते हुए
िण्डल की परीक्षा समिनत िें हुए निणणयािस
ु ार 01 अंक की वद्
ृ धध होिे
अथवा श्रेणी पररवतणि होिे पर ही िवीि परीक्षाफल तैयार ककया जावेगा,
तथा परु ािी अंकसच
ू ी वापस प्राप्त होिे पर िवीि अंकसच
ू ी प्रिाय की
जावेगी।
15.3 िण्डल परीक्षा िें श्रेणी सध
ु ार का लाभ अन्य राज्य / अन्य बोडण से
उत्तीण छात्रों को िहीं दिया जावेगा"
14] It is apparent that the petitioner was not entitled to improve
his grade in Class-XII examination and to get himself admitted in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13618
WP No.5601-2025 & 6592-2025
respondent No.3 school, however, it is also found that the petitioner
has furnished all the relevant information including the fact that he has
already passed the Class-XII examination from the ICSE Board, the
mark-sheet of which was also uploaded by him along with his
application, and in such circumstances, it was the duty of the
respondent No.3 to ensure that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner
if he is given admission in their school, however, the respondent No.3
School has failed in its duty to advise the petitioner at the relevant
time that he cannot improve his grade obtained in the ICSE
examination by taking admission in the respondent No.3 School,
where the exams were to be conducted by the M.P. Board.
15] It is also found that the Division Bench of this Court has
also had the occasion to deal with such an issue, where the petitioner
had earlier appeared in the examination held by the Central Board of
Secondary Education, and subsequently, he wanted to improve his
grade by giving the M.P. Board examination, but in the aforesaid case,
it was also found that the petitioner was involved in suppression of
material facts and while relying upon the decision rendered in the case
of Sarla (Kr.), it was held as under :-
"This Hon'ble High Court in the case of Sarla (Kr.) V. State of
M.P., reported in 1992 (II), M.P. Weekly Notes, 293 has held
as under:-
â□□In the form Annexure-1 the petitioner has stated that
she has passed the earlier e x a m i n a t i o n from S c i n d i a
K a n ya Vidyalaya, Gwalior and has given the roll
number also, but she has not disclosed t h a t s h e h a d
p a s s e d t h e e a r l i e r examination from the Central
Board. The letter dated 29.03.90 issued by the
Divisional Officer of M.P. Board to the Principal of the
institution through which the petitioner appeared, also
makes it clear that the form of the petitioner is being
forwarded on a provisional basis and she should given an
undertaking that if her result is cancelled then she will be
solely respondent for that. As such the form was
forwarded only provisionally and it was subject to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13618
WP No.5601-2025 & 6592-2025
cancellation of the result if the examination was against the
rules. Further more there is a column No.17 in the
form wherein the candidate is required to disclose whether
he/she has passed the 10th , 11th examination or the
equivalent examination from outside M.P. But despite the
fact that the petitioner had passed the examination from a
Board outside the State she had kept that column
blank and not cared to fill up that column. He?? she filled
up that column the authorities would have known that she
had passed the examination from outside the State and,
therefore, she could not be a d m i t t e d in vi ew of the
s t a t u t o r y regulation No.212 of the Board. As such the
admission and roll number was obtained by the
petitioner by suppressing the fact that she had passed the
earlier examination from the Central Board of Higher
Secondary Education.
Now, let us have a look at Regulation No.212 of
the Board, which reads as under:-
Regulation-212. Candidates who have
passed the Higher Secondary School
certificate Examination (Intermediate
Examination) from the Board, may be
permitted to reappear at next
examination for imp rov in g their
division as a regular/private
candidate. This permission may be
given during two successive years after
passing the examination. If the candidate
im p r o v e s his d iv is io n in this attempt,
his previous Certificate shall be deposited
in the Board and fresh certificate
shall b e issued. But in case he does not
improve h is division his
examination of this attempt shall be
cancelled.
F r o m a p l a i n r e a d i n g of t he
aforesaid Regulation it is evident that the
facility of appearing at a second
examination for improving the division is
provided only to those candidates who
have passed the earlier examination from
the M.P. Board, and if the candidate
reappears at the examination and
improves his/her division the
p r e v iou s certificate shall be
deposited with the Board and fresh
certificate shall be issued.
Now, in the instant case the Board of M.P. has no authority
to cancel the certificate of the Central Board of education
even if it may be assumed that the Board may permit a
candidate to reappear for improving the division
despite his having passed the examination from outside
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13618
WP No.5601-2025 & 6592-2025
the State. As such if such a candidate is allowed to appear
two certificates will come into existence, one by the Board
of M.P. and the other by the C e n t r a l B o a r d , whi ch
is a ga i n s t an opportunity to a candidate to improve the
division. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the
petition has no merit in view of the fact that firstly the
petitioner has suppressed this fact that she has passed the
earlier examination from the Central Board of
Education and obtained the admission and roll number for
appearing in the examination by suppressing material fact.
Secondly, the statutory Regulation 212 does not permit the
Board to allow a candidate to improve his/her
division if such a candidate has passed the earlier
examination from a Board other than the Board of M.P.
1990 (1) MPWN 28, 1990 (1) MPWN 132 (SC) and
1987 (1)MPWN 172 distinguished.
Therefore, in our considered opinion, the Board has rightly
rejected the application form of the petitioner and declined the
admit card, as the petitioner is not eligible to appear in the
examination for improvement of his division as a private
candidate conducted by the Board of Secondary Education.
In view of the reply submitted to the contempt petition, we
are satisfied and accordingly the contempt of notice is
discharged, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismi ssed
with cost of Rs.5 ,0 00/ - as he h a s suppressed the fact
about the rejection of his application form by the Board in
which it was clearly mentioned that he was a regular student of
CBSE and is not entitled to appear in the Class-12th examination
conducted by the Board of Secondary Education. As mentioned
in the order dated 29.02.2016, the petitioner will not claim
any equity in the mark-sheet by virtue of his appearance in
the examination conducted by the Board of Secondary
Education. The writ petition has no merit and is
h e r e b y accordingly dismissed."
(Emphasis Supplied)
16] So far as the facts in the case of Sarla (Kr.) Supra is
concerned, it is found that in the said case also the petitioner
suppressed the relevant information, as it was informed that she had
passed the earlier examination from Scindia Kanya Vidyalaya,
Gwalior and has given the roll number also, but she has not disclosed
that she had passed the earlier examination from the Central Board.
17] So far as the decision in the case of Naiffa (Supra) before the
Madras High Court is concerned, it was found that there was no
suppression of facts by the petitioner, and she was not at fault in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13618
WP No.5601-2025 & 6592-2025
irregularities, which led to her disqualification, and in such
circumstances, the Madras High Court has allowed the petition. It is
also found that in the aforesaid decision, the Madras High Court has
also relied upon the various decisions of the Supreme Court, the
relevant paras of the said decision read as under:-
"9. At this stage, it is necessary for me to refer to a decision of the
apex court of this country in A. Sudha v. University of Mysore,
(1987) 4 SCC 537 : AIR 1987 SC 2305. In that case, the Supreme
Court had an occasion to consider a case of a candidate who has
been admitted to medical College and who has not securing 50%
marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together in
qualifying examination (P.U.C). That case was preferred by a
student, seeking Special Leave petition against the Judgment of
Karnataka High Court. The Supreme Court, in that case, upheld the
judgment of the Karnataka High Court holding that the student,
(i.e.) the appellant before the Supreme Court, was not eligible for
admission in the first year M.B.B.S. Course. However, after holding
so, the Supreme Court considered the question whether the student
should be allowed to continue her studies in the M.B.B.S. Course.
In that case, the Supreme Court took note of the fact that by virtue
of the interim order of the High Court the appellant completed the
First Year MBBS course and by virtue of the interim order passed
by the Supreme Court, the appellant appeared in the First Year
MBBS examination. In that case the Supreme Court considered its
earlier judgments in A.P. Christians Medical Educational
Society v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (1986) 2 SCC 667 :
AIR 1986 SC 1490 and in Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka
University, 1986 Supp SCC 740 : AIR 1986 SC 1448. After
considering those cases, the Supreme Court in the
abovementioned case has held as follows (at p. 2309):
"The appellant was, therefore, quite innocent and she was
quite justifying in relying upon the information supplied to her
by none else than the principle of the Institute in the said letter
in regard to the eligibility of the admission in the First Year
MBBS Course. In the circumstances, we do not think that we
shall be justified in penalising the appellant by not allowing
her to continue her studies in the MBBS Course. Prima facie it
was the fault of the principal of the Institute, but, in our view,
the statement that was made by him in his said letter to the
appellant as to the eligibility of the appellant for admission in
the MBBS Course, was on a bona fide interpretation of the
regulations framed by the Mysore University for admission to
MBBS Course for the academic year 1985-86, which to some
extent suffer from ambiguity. The regulations should have
been more clear and specific. Be that as it may, following the
decision of this Court in Rajendra Prasad
Mathur v. Karnataka University, (1986 Supp SCC 740 : AIR
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13618
WP No.5601-2025 & 6592-2025
1986 SC 1448). While we dismiss the appeal, we direct that
the appellant shall be allowed to prosecute her studies in the
MBBS Course, and that her result for the First Year MBBS
examination be declared within two weeks from date".
10. The abovementioned Supreme Court cases were considered by
me in Jagdish Chandra A.D. v. University of Madras, 1988 Writ LR
277. In that case, I have referred to all the decisions of the Supreme
Court on this aspect and after having held that the student therein
cannot claim the right to sit for the examination the facts and
circumstances of that case, I directed the publication of the result
therein. Apart from that, the Supreme Court again in Ashok Chand
Singhvi v. Jodhpur University, (1989) 1 SCC 399 : AIR 1989 SC
823 had an occasion to consider the question where the application
of a Diploma Holder in Engineering in Jodhpur University was kept
in abeyance by the Dean, with regard to his admission, the Supreme
Court has held as follows (at p. 826):
"Assuming that the appellant was admitted through
mistake, the appellant not being at fault, it is difficult to
sustain the order withholding the admission of the
appellant. In this connection, we may refer to a decision
of this court in Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka
University, 1986 Supp SCC 740 : AIR 1986 SC 1448.
In that case, the appellants were admitted to certain
private engineering colleges for the B.E. Degree course,
although they were not eligible for admission. In that
case, this Court dismissed the appeals preferred by the
students whose admissions were subsequently cancelled
and the order of cancellation was upheld by the High
Court. At the same time, this Court took the view that the
fault lay with the engineering colleges which admitted the
appellants and that there was no reason why the
appellants should suffer for the sins of the management
of those engineering colleges Accordingly, this Court
allowed the appellants to continue their studies in the
respective engineering colleges in which they were
granted admission. The same principle which weighed
with this Court in the instant case. The appellant was not
at fault and we do not see why he should suffer for the
mistake committed by the Vice Chancellor and the Dean
of the Faculty of Engineering".
Following the abovementioned decisions, I am of the
view that the petitioner herein should not be penalised for
the mistake committed by the third respondent school and
the local guardian. As I have already stated the petitioner
herein did not give any incorrect information regarding
her qualifications or her eligibility. She was admitted by
the third respondent school and wrote the Limitation
under Orders of this Court. As I have already stated the
third respondent school was under the bona fide
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13618
WP No.5601-2025 & 6592-2025
impression that necessary relaxation will be given by the
respondent Board from New Delhi. In view of that, as the
apex court of this land has done, I dismiss the writ
petition. No costs.
11. However considering the peculiar fact of this case, this court has
got jurisdiction to mould the prayer to suit the occasion and as such,
instead of deciding the validity of the bye-laws 1988 or bye-laws
1990 whics is raised in the writ petition a direction is to issue to the
first respondent Board to relax the relevant rules, in favour of the
petitioner herein, both with regard to the admission of the petitioner
in Class XII and also for the appearance of the petitioner in Classs
XII examination conducted from 15-3-1991 and published the
results of the exmaination within one week from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order."
(Emphasis Supplied)
18] In such facts and circumstances of the case, in the present case,
when the petitioner has knocked the doors of the Court with clean
hands, and has given all the necessary information, including
uploading of his mark-sheet, at the time of submitting his application
for admission, which must have been forwarded by the respondent
No.3 School to the M.P. Board, and no objection was raised by any of
the parties, till the date when the admit cards were issued, this Court is
of the considered opinion that it would be unfair to treat the present
petitioner at par with the petitioners in the cases of Bhanu Pratap
Singh Moury (Supra) and Sarla (Kr.)(Supra), against whom it was
found that they had suppressed the material facts while taking the
examination, thus, in both the aforesaid cases, this court had no
occasion to consider the aspect of bona-fide on the part of the
petitioners. In view of the same, both the cases are distinguishable on
this point only and are of no avail to the respondent no.2.
19] So far as the conduct of the respondent No.3 School is concerned,
as it is already found that the School was clearly at fault in allowing
the petitioner to take admission in Class-XII for improvement of his
grade, which has led to all these complications and filing of these
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13618
WP No.5601-2025 & 6592-2025
petitions, in such circumstances, respondent No.3 School cannot be
allowed to take advantage of its own mistakes, and in fact, it is liable
to be imposed as exemplary cost for the same.
20] In view of the same, it is directed to the respondent No.3 School to
remit the entire fee received by it from both the petitioners to the
Respondent No.2 M.P. Board of Secondary Education, within a period
of two months, and a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) for
each of the petitioners be also paid in the account of -President
and Secretary H.C. Employees Union H.C. (Account
No.63006406008, Branch Code No. 30528, IFSC No.
SBIN0030528, CIF No. 73003108919) within a period of 60 days
from today and obtain a receipt.
21] Resultantly, the petitions stand allowed, and the respondents are
directed to declare the result of the petitioners, and furnish them the
mark-sheet accordingly. It is also directed that in the mark-sheet of the
petitioners, it may be endorsed that their examination was a 'grade
improvement examination' and that they have earlier passed the same
class from ICSE Board in the year 2023-2024.
22] With the aforesaid, the petitions stand allowed and disposed of.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
Bahar
