http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4908 of 2006

PETITIONER: Minor Sunil Oraon Tr. Guardian & Ors

RESPONDENT: C.B.S.E. & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/11/2006

BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP (C) No.11820 of 2006)

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

       Leave granted.

       Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a  Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court dismissing the  Letters Patent Appeal which was filed by the Cambridge School  Parents Association and another questioning legality of the  judgment and order dated 15.6.2006 passed by a learned  Single Judge in a Writ Petition.  In the Writ Petition prayer was  for a direction to the respondent-Central Board of Secondary  Education (in short the ’CBSE’) to allow the students to appear  in the examination conducted by CBSE and to publish their  results.  The Writ Petition related to 159 students of Class X  and 121 students of class XII of the Cambridge School,  Tatisilwai, Ranchi for appearing in the examination which was  scheduled to be held on 1st March, 2006. Though initially  learned Single Judge had permitted candidates to appear  pursuant to interim order dated 27.2.2006, subsequently the  writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the school was  not affiliated to the CBSE and, therefore, no direction sought  for could be given.  In the appeal filed under Clause 10 of  Letters Patent, the view was endorsed.          In support of the appeal learned counsel for the  appellants submitted that for no fault of theirs, the academic  career of nearly 300 students is being jeopardized. Non- affiliation for some particular years has been highlighted by  learned Single Judge and the Division Bench overlooking the  facts that affiliation has been granted on 29.8.2006 for the  academic session 2006-07 covering the period from 1.4.2006  to 31.3.2007.

       In response, learned counsel appearing for CBSE and its  functionaries submitted that the present appellants were  proforma respondents before the High Court and the  Cambridge School Parents Association purporting to be an  unregistered Association of Parents of children studying in the  said institution was the appellant. Further one of the proforma  respondents was the appellant No. 2 before the High Court.  It  is pointed out that law is fairly well settled that students of  non-affiliated schools cannot claim any relief on equitable  ground. Any sympathy shown to the students of the  unaffiliated and/or non-recognised institutions would be mis-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

placed sympathy.

       Certain facts which are undisputed need to be noted:

The respondent No. 4 the Cambridge School had applied  for grant of affiliation in September 1994 and was granted  affiliation for a period of three years i.e. with effect from  1.4.1994 to 31.3.1997.  The school applied for upgradation to  plus 2 stage and the school was accorded upgradation up to  plus 2 stage for a period of three years from 1.4.1996 to  31.3.1999.  The affiliation of the school at Secondary/Sr.  Secondary level was further extended for a period of three  years from 1.4.1999 to 31.3.2002 and thereafter up to  31.3.2005 subject to fulfillment of Examination Bye Laws and  the Affiliation Bye Laws of CBSE.  As per the Affiliation Bye- Laws of CBSE, the school applying for affiliation has to fulfill  certain essential conditions.  The relevant provisions relating  to affiliation in the Bye Laws are as under:

(i)     It is mandatory for a school affiliated to  Board to follow the Examination Bye- Laws of the Board in toto;

(ii)  No affiliated school shall endeavor to      present the candidates who are not on its  roll nor shall it present the candidates of  its unaffiliated Branch/School to any of  the Board’s Examination.

(iii)   If the Board has reasons to believe that  an affiliated school is not following the  Sub-section 1 & 2 of this Section, the  Board may resort to penalties as  prescribed hereunder. (iv)    Every affiliated school shall present a list  of number of students and their  particulars in respect of Classes IX, X, XI  & XII at the time of beginning of an  academic session.

       According to the respondent CBSE, the school in gross  violation of Affiliation Bye-Laws was admitting large number of  students in the secondary and senior secondary classes  without providing support in terms of infrastructural facilities  and also without adequate provision of qualified teachers.   There were 30 sections in the school in classes IX to XII  whereas there were only 40 sections from Nursery to Class  VIII.  It was also found that the school had admitted students  from other unauthorized schools and sponsoring the students  of unaffiliated school through this school.  Inspection by the  Inspection Committee constituted by CBSE was conducted  and the Inspection Committee found that the school was not  abiding by the Examination Bye Laws/Affiliation Bye Laws of  the CBSE.  It was further noticed that in clear violation of the  norms, the Cambridge School, Tatiswal, Ranchi which was the  only school affiliated with the CBSE was running three schools  which were not affiliated with the CBSE, they are as follows:

1.      Kamla Nehru Vidya Mandir Tatisilwai, Ranchi, 2.      Cambridge School, Kumartoli, Ranchi, 3.      Cambridge School, Morhabodi, Ranchi.

The Inspection Committee found that the said school was not  in a position to accommodate a large number of candidates as  has been sponsored by it for taking All India Secondary School

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

Examination and All India Senior School Certificate  Examination to be held in the year 2002 and 2003.  Other  deficiencies were also noticed.  One of the major infraction was  that the school failed to produce the original school records,  namely acquaintance roll of the teaching/non teaching staff  working the school affiliated with the CBSE, fee collection  register and the  class wise attendance register. A large  number of students had been sponsored for appearance,  though the number of bonafide students was much less.   Notice was sent to the school to show cause as to why  necessary actions are not to be taken to withdraw provisional  affiliation granted.  Considering the replies to various  communications by letter dated 27/28.2.2003 the school was  informed as follows:

"However, taking into consideration the  career of students and to safeguard the  academic future of present students studying  under the CBSE pattern and are in the Classes  IX, X, XI & XII, the Competent Authority of the  Board has agreed to permit all these students  to appear at the All India Secondary and All  India Sr. Secondary Certificate Examinations,  scheduled to be held in March, 2003 and  2004. But the school will not run any class  under CBSE pattern specifically classes IX, X,  XI & XII w.e.f academic session 2003 and 2004  and in case of any violation in this regard the  responsibility and consequences would rest  upon the school authorities and the Board  shall not be responsible."

CBSE was requested by the School to reconsider and  review the decision regarding withdrawal of violation.  In reply  CBSE vide its letter dated 23.7.2003 advised the school not to  run any Secondary/Senior Secondary classes under CBSE  pattern.

A mercy appeal vide letter dated 19.1.2003 was  submitted by the school and request was made to safeguard  the educational interest of the students.  The school instead of  removing the deficiencies communicated to them by CBSE,  requested for a sympathetic consideration by letter dated  16.3.2004.  Joint Secretary (Affiliation), CBSE informed the  school to submit the status report of removal of deficiencies as  had been intimated to the school and it was, therefore,  required to apply afresh for provisional affiliation as per the  requirements of the Affiliation Bye Laws. The school applied  for grant of fresh affiliation by application dated 31.5.2004.   An Inspection Team was appointed for inspection of the  school.  As the essential conditions had not been fulfilled, the  application was rejected by letter dated 7.10.2004.  The school  was informed about the glaring irregularities committed.  The  President of the school again requested CBSE to allow the  students to appear in Class X and XII Board Examinations  which was scheduled to be held in March, 2005.  School  reiterated its request and by letter dated 19.11.2004 made a  prayer for allowing students of Class X and XII to appear in  2005 Examination though their application for composite  affiliation had been rejected. Certain undertakings were given  in the said letter dated 19.11.2004 which, so far as relevant,  are as follows:

"(a) We have not taken admission in Class  IX and XI and will not admit without the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

permission of the Board.

(b) We have not admitted any additional  student in class X and XII for 2005 Exam.

(c) I firmly promise not to approach the  Board in future for examinations to be held  after the students currently in Class X and XII  are kindly allowed to take their examinations  in 2005 on humanitarian grounds."

On the basis of the undertaking the Joint Secretary  (Affiliation) CBSE by letter dated 9.12.2004 informed the  school about the consideration of the request. It was noted  that there were no students in classes IX and XI for the  examinations to be held in 2006 and only students of class X  and XII were allowed to appear at the All India Secondary and  Senior Secondary Examination to be held in March, 2005  provided no candidate was directly admitted in class X and XII  in the school.    The school again applied for affiliation on 22.3.2005  clearly indicating that there was no student in class IX and XI.  

By letter dated 28.6.2005 CBSE informed the School that  its request shall be considered up to Secondary level in the  first instance. The school was clearly warned to stop  functioning of its classes upto senior secondary level, without  remaining the deficiencies pointed out on several earlier  occasions. Vide letter dated 6.2.2006 the school requested  CBSE to permit 159 students in class X and 121 students in  class XII to appear examination which was to be held in  March, 2006.  The request was turned down.

It is essentially the stand of CBSE that the School is not  an affiliated one to the CBSE and students whose schools are  not affiliated with the Board cannot be allowed to sit in the  Board’s Examination as regular students.  Though by interim  order dated 27.2.2006 the learned Single Judge directed CBSE  to allow the students of class X and XII of the school  provisionally appear at the Examination, the same was subject  to the decision of the case.  Subsequently, the Writ Petition  was dismissed and as noted above the Letters Patent Appeal  was also dismissed.  By filing Additional affidavit the petitioner  has stated that some of the students who have taken the  Examination pursuant to the interim order passed by the  Board were in fact bona fide students. 32 students were  studying from the lower schools and the 13 students were also  studying from lower classes but had failed earlier appeared in  class XII examination. Since these students are bona fide  students even if it is held that affiliation has not been granted  for certain period, that cannot be taken as a weapon to  practically destroy the educational career of the students.  The  appellants have enclosed a list of 159 students of class X and  121 students of Class XII who were allowed to appear in the  Secondary School and Senior Secondary Examination, 2006 in  terms of the interim order passed.  CBSE in its affidavit had  clarified that 728 students appeared in Class X Secondary  School Examination which was held in 2006 from the school.   Names of only 16 students appear in the list of Class XII  examination held in 2006. The details in this regard are stated  as follows:

"..further say that out of 728 students  appeared in Class X examination (Secondary

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

School Examination) held in March, 2004 from  Cambridge School, Tatisilwai, Ranchi names of  following 16 students only appear in the list of  Class XII examination held in March, 2006  from this School:

Roll No.                                    Name March/July, 2004 1. 5140574                      Kushal Chopra 2. 5140578                      Manoj Kumar 3. 5140616                      Renu KumariKarkusha 4. 5140621                      Sweety Mahto 5. 5140624                      Inu Pradhan 6. 5140658                      Ashish Kumar Choudhary 7. 5140688                      Manali 8. 5140733                      Rohit Kumar 9. 5140803                      SubhankarPrabhakar 10. 5140993                     Shatabdi Gunjan 11. 5141007                     Sanjay Kumar Srivastava 12. 5141051                     Mohit Rajan 13. 5141065                     Shailendra Chakram 14. 5141172                     Ravi Kumar 15. 5141196                     Deepika Rani 16. 5141281                     Pancham kumar Basant Jonko

I am stating hereunder the status of 121  students mentioned in Annexure 1 annexed by  the Petitioner with the Special Leave Petition:

SI. Nos. 6, 7, 14, 20 and 28, 36, 38, 44,  45,48, 49, 54, 56, 75, 78, 87, 104, 106, 117,  119 have not appeared in Class X Examination  conducted by the Central Board of Secondary  Education but have appeared from other  Board.

The Roll Nos. of Candidates at SI. No. 34,  79, 121 as stated in Annexure I are wrong,  hence, their status has not been given.

SI. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 13,  16,17,18,19, 21, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32,  35, 39, 40,41, 42, 47, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 57,  58, 59, 61, 62, 65,69, 70, 74, 80, 82, 83, 84,  85, 86, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93,94, 95, 96, 97, 102,  103, 105, 109, 110, 111, 112,113, 114, 115,  116, 118, 120 have not appeared in Class X  Examination of CBSE from Cambridge School,  Tetisilwai, Ranch.

I am enclosing herewith Annexure R-13  showing the details of the students and  schools from where they have passed Class X  examination."

Now, we would refer to the law settled by this Court in  various Judgments to the effect that interim orders of the  nature passed in the present case are detrimental to education  and its efficient management. As a matter of course, such  interim orders should not be passed, as they are aberrations  and it is subversive of academic discipline.

In Regional Officer, CBSE  v. Sheena Pethambaran,  [(2003) 7 SCC 719], at page this Court has observed:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

"6. This Court has on several occasions earner  deprecated the practice of permitting the  students to pursue their studies and to appear  in the examination under the interim orders  passed in the petitions.  In most of such cases  it is ultimately pleaded that since the course  was over or the result had been declared, the  matter deserves to be considered  sympathetically. It results in very awkward  and difficult situations. Rules stare straight  into the face of the plea of sympathy and  concessions, against the legal provisions\005\005"

In the case of C.B.S.E. & Anr. v. P. Sunil Kumar & Ors.  [(1998) 5 SCC 377], the institutions whose students were  permitted to undertake the examination of the Central Board  of Secondary Education were not entitled to appear in the  examination. They were, however, allowed to appear in the  examination under the interim orders granted by the High  Court.  In that context the Supreme Court observed:

"4\005\005\005\005 "But to permit students of an  unaffiliated institution to appear at the  examination conducted by the Board under  orders of the Court and then to compel the  Board to issue certificates in favour of those  who have undertaken examination would  tantamount to subversion of law and this  Court will not be justified to sustain the orders  issued by the High Court on misplaced  sympathy in favour of the students."

In the case of Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder  Kr. Bansal [(1993) 4 SCC, 401] the Supreme Court observed  that such interim order is subversive of academic discipline.  The relevant observations are as under:

"We are afraid that this kind of administration  of interlocutory remedies, more guided by  sympathy quite often wholly misplaced, does  no service to anyone. From the series of orders  that keep coming before us in academic  matters, we find that loose, ill-conceived  sympathy masquerades as interlocutory  justice exposing judicial discretion to the  criticism of degenerating into private  benevolence. This is subversive of academic  discipline, or whatever is left of it, leading to  serious impasse in academic life. Admissions  cannot be ordered without regard to the  eligibility of the candidates ... The courts  should not embarrass academic authorities by  themselves taking over their functions."

Yet in another case i.e. in the case of A.R Christians  Medical Educational Society vs. Govt. of A.P. [(1986) 2 SCC  667] this Court held that:

       "We cannot by our fiat direct the  University to disobey the statute to which it  owes its existence and the regulations made by  the University itself. We cannot imagine

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

anything more destructive of the rule of law  than a direction by the court to disobey the  laws."

In the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. St. Joseph Teacher’s  Training Institute [(1991) 3 SCC 87] this Court observed that  the direction of admitting the students of unauthorized  educational institutions and permitting them to appear at the  examination has been looked on with disfavour and the  students of unrecognised institutions who are not legally  entitled to appear at the examination conducted by the  Educational Department of the Government cannot be allowed  to sit at the examination and the High Court committed an  error in granting permission to such students to appear at the  public examination.

In the case of Central Board of Secondary Education v.  Nikhil Gulati [(1998) 3 SCC 5], this Court deprecated the  practice followed by the High Court to issue direction and also  observed that such aberrations should not be treated as a  precedent in future.

In Krishna Priya Ganguly v. University of Lucknow  [(1984)1 SCC 307], the Supreme Court observed:

"3 Whenever a writ petition is filed provisional  admission should not be given as a matter of  course on the petition being admitted unless  the court is fully satisfied that the petitioner  has a cast-iron case which is bound to succeed  or the error is so gross or apparent that no  other conclusion is possible."

In State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale  (1992) 4 SCC 435], it was held that  the students of unrecognized and unauthorized educational  institutions could not have been  permitted by the High Court on a writ Petition being filed to  appear in the examination and to be accommodated in  recognized institutions. This Court observed:

"12. Slackening the standard and judicial fiat  to control the mode of education and  examining system are detrimental to the  efficient management of the education."

Time and again, therefore, this Court had deprecated the  practice of educational institution admitting the students  without requisite recognition or affiliation.  In all such cases  the usual plea is the career of innocent children who have  fallen in the hands of the mischievous designated school  authorities.  As the factual scenario delineated against goes to  show the school has shown scant regards to the requirements  for affiliation and as rightly highlighted by learned counsel for  the CBSE, the infraction was of very serious nature.  Though  the ultimate victims are innocent students that cannot be a  ground for granting relief to the appellant.  Even after filing  the undertakings the School non-challantly continued the  violations. Students have suffered because of the objectionable  conduct of the school. It shall be open to them to seek such  remedy against School as is available in law, about which  aspect we express no opinion.

The appeal is dismissed but without any order as to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

costs.