DT
PT
Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Advertise with us Classifieds
search-icon-img
search-icon-img
Advertisement

Class X: Punjab and Haryana High Court upholds clause on clearing compartment exam in one go

Saurabh Malik Chandigarh, July 12 The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld a clause in the CBSE examination bylaws making it mandatory for a Class X compartment student to pass the subject in first chance in the compartmental examinations...
  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
Advertisement

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, July 12

Advertisement

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld a clause in the CBSE examination bylaws making it mandatory for a Class X compartment student to pass the subject in first chance in the compartmental examinations held in July/August of that year.

No law cited

No rule, regulation, bylaw or law has been referred to by counsel for the petitioner to show that he had any legal right to be given more than one chance for confirming his provisional admission to Class XI. Justice Vikas Bahla, Punjab and Haryana High Court

Justice Vikas Bahl asserted that Clause 42(v) of the bylaws, providing that a student placed in compartment in Class X should be provisionally admitted to Class XI on the condition of passing the subject in the first chance, was “legal and valid”.

Advertisement

The ruling came in a case where the petitioner-student provisionally admitted to Class XI did not pass the compartment subject in the first chance. Rather, he secured lesser than the board marks. Justice Bahl asserted his admission to Class XI should have been cancelled by the school as specifically provided in the sub-clause. But the petitioner, in collusion with the school, forwarded false information of clearing Class X exams in 2019. He got the roll number for 10+2 exams after suppressing material facts.

Justice Bahl said the board “rightly made an entry of ‘not eligible’ in the result certificate” issued to the petitioner after finding out the same and the challenge to the clause was devoid of merit. Among other reasons for the rejection, the Bench held no rule, regulation, bylaw or law was referred to by the petitioner’s counsel to show he had any legal right to be given more than one chance for confirming his provisional admission.

Justice Bahl observed the petitioner’s counsel submitted that the condition regarding provisional admission subject to clearing compartmental examination in first chance was required be replaced and multiple chances were required to be provided.

The judge added that a second or a third chance would create an anomalous situation. The third chance would be given in July/August of the next year. But the annual exams were to be held in March/April. As such, a student who had not even cleared Class X exam would be eligible for Class XI exam.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Home tlbr_img2 Opinion tlbr_img3 Classifieds tlbr_img4 Videos tlbr_img5 E-Paper