# Agarwal v. Additional Secretary, Board

- **Citation:** (2000) 3 ILRA 176
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2000-08-16
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/agarwal-v-additional-secretary-board-39657
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000

176
In the result, the petition fails and is
dismissed. Interim order operating in the
case shall stand discharged.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'

%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( $. <2* -
7+( +21·%/( $. <2* -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

0RDU 6LQJK
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 DQG 2WKHUV «5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
.P 6XQLWD 6KDUPD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&
6KUL $. 0HKURWUD

&RQVWLWXWLRQ
RI
,QGLD
$UWLFOH

0DQGDPXV
,QRUGLQDWH
GHOD\
E\
83
%RDUG
LQ
GHFODULQJ
VFUXWLQ\
UHVXOW
RI
,QWHUPHGLDWH
H[DPLQDWLRQ
±%RDUG
SOHDGLQJ
ORFN
RI
LQIUDVWUXFWXUH
0DQGDPXV
LVVXHG
GLUHFWLQJ
6WDWH
WR
SURYLGH WKH VDPH 'LUHFWLRQV DOVR LVVXHG
WR WKH %RDUG WR GHFODUH VFUXWLQ\ UHVXOWV
E\ WK 6HSWHPEHU
+HOG ± 3DUD
'LIILFXOWLHV
RI
WKH
%RDUG
FDQQRW
EH
LJQRUHG RU RYHUORRNHG )RU WKLV SXUSRVH D
JHQHUDO PDQGDPXV LV EHLQJ LVVXHG WR WKH
6WDWH
RI
83
WKURXJK
6HFUHWDU\
0DGK\DPLN 6KLNVKD DQG &KLHI 6HFUHWDU\
*RYHUQPHQW
RI
83
WR
FRQVLGHU
WKH
SURSRVDO RI WKH %RDUG LI RQH LV VXEPLWWHG
ZLWK
UHOHYDQW
IDFWV
ILJXUHV
DQG
GRFXPHQWV
IRU
SURYLGLQJ
UHTXLVLWH
IDFLOLWLHV WR KROG μSURSHU¶ H[DPLQDWLRQV DV
ZHOO
DV
μVFUXWLQ\¶
WKH
VDPH VKDOO EH
FRQVLGHUHG
JLYLQJ
WRS
SULRULW\
DV
μ(GXFDWLRQ¶ FDQQRW EH LJQRUHG LI ZH ZDQW
WR SXW WKH 6WDWH LQ RUGHU 5HVXOWV KDYH WR
EH GHFODUHG ZLWKLQ WKH GHVLUHG WLPH VR
WKDW VWXGHQWV DQG WKHLU SDUHQWV DUH QRW
KDUDVVHG DSDUW IURP EXUGHQLQJ WKLV FRXUW
FRPSHOOLQJ
LQGLYLGXDO
WR
ILOH
ZULW
SHWLWLRQV
&DVHV UHIHUUHG
 (GX 6HU &DVHV $OO

By the Court

1. This is a petition by Moar Singh,
who had appeared in the Intermediate
Examination- 2000 conducted by U.P.
Board and had applied for scrutiny after
paying requisite fee within the time
prescribed by the Board itself

2. This petition was taken up on 16th
August, 2000 and thereafter at the request
of learned counsel representing State and
U.P. Board, adjourned from time to time
in order to enable the respondentauthorities to assist the court in informing
minimum possible time required for
completing the entire work of scrutiny
with regard to the High School and
Intermediate
Examination-2000
conducted by the Board.

3. Sri A.N. Verma, Additional
Secretary, U.P. Board was present on the
last date as well as he is present in Court
today. On his instructions the learned
Standing Counsel has made submissions
and apprised the Court about magnitude
of work to be undertaken by the Board
while deciding the scrutiny applications
with respect to aforesaid examination.

4. A suggestion is being made that
the Board shall complete 'entire scrutiny
work' of the said examinations and it
shall declare/publish the results on or
before October 31, 2000.
3All] Moar Singh V. State of U.P. and others 177

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
placed reliance on the case of Km. Sweta
Agarwal Vs. Additional Secretary, Board
of
High
School
and
Intermediate
Education U.P. and another. 1993 (3)
Education and Service Cases 2276 (Alld.)
wherein this Bench had occasion to
consider the matter of delay in scrutiny by
the Board.

6. This Court had directed U.P.
Board last year also after considering
similar difficulty to complete the scrutiny
work by 31st October 1999. In the case of
Sweta Agarwal (Supra) the present
Additional Secretary, Board (who also
happened to be Secretary at the time of
scrutiny of Board's examination.1999)
had informed the Court that regular
scrutiny work is disrupted because of this
Court issuing mandamus in individual
writs and directing the Board has to
decide the cases of those individual
petitioners out of turn. The grievance of
the Board was that in order to comply
with the High Court's orders in individual
petitions their regular work is being
dislocated which ultimately precipitates
the delay in completion of scrutiny work.

7. In the case of Sweta Agarwal
(supra) referring to various decisions of
this Court as well as that of Apex Court, it
was observed that in matters like the
present every individual should not be
required to rush to Court and in exercise
of its extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article
226,
Constitution
of
India,
directed the Board to decide as cases of
scrutiny together and declare the results
simultaneously so that no candidate is
placed in a better position only because he
had rushed to the Court or otherwise
disadvantage due to the fact that one
failed
to
approach
the
Court.
Consequently, Court issued a general writ
of mandamus to command the concerned
authorities
(Present
Respondents)
to
decide all pending applications of scrutiny
on
or before October 31,1999, to
communicate the results to the concerned
applicants in normal course as per
prevailing practice and further to ensure
to declare scrutiny result by publishing
the same in two Daily Newspapers of
Hindi and tow Daily Newspapers of
English,
namely
"Dainik
Jagran'
'Rashtriya Sahara' 'Hindustan Times' and
Times of India respectively and in case of
their various editions the publication to be
made in all the editions of the aforesaid
newspapers. Covering circulation in the
entire State of Uttar Pradesh.

8. Facts of the present case are
similar and this Court takes notice of the
fact that the candidates are again running
to the Court for obtaining relief so as to
expedite the declaration of result of
scrutiny and somehow bypass others in
the waiting- irrespective of the one being
late in submitting the scrutiny application.

9. No elaborate argument is required
to assess agony of the examinees, in case
of inordinate delay in completing the
scrutiny work, inasmuch as the examinee
shall lose benefit of 'scrutiny' even if the
revised result in his favour unless it is
declared promptly and at least before
'Admission' are over. Otherwise also he
must know, if his result remain same, so
that he may apply for same examination
of the nest session.

10. The Board charges fees. It had to
render service so that it is meaningful to
the candidate. Tale of woes, narrated by
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000

178
the official before this court regarding
paucity
of
funds,
Racks,
Hall
(accommodation etc. ) is of no avail or
purpose to the candidate.

11. Sri A.K. Mehrotra, learned
Standing Counsel, submit that U.P. Board
does not have proper facilities for storing
copies, Evaluation Hall, generator in case
of electricity failure, funds and other
connected infrastructure so as to ensure
the work of scrutiny to be completed
promptly i.e. within 4 to 6 weeks.

12. Difficulties of the Board cannot
be ignored or overlooked. For this
purpose a general mandamus is being
issued to the State of U.P. through
Secretary. Madhyamik Shiksha, and Chief
Secretary Government of U.P. to consider
the proposal of the Board, if one is
submitted with relevant facts, figures and
documents
for
providing
requisite
facilities to hold 'proper' examinations as
well as 'scrutiny' the same shall be
considered
giving
top
priority,
as
'Education' cannot be ignored if we want
to put the State in order. Results have to
be declared within the desired time so that
students and their parents are not harassed
apart
from
burdening
this
court
compelling
individual
to
file
writ
petitions.

13. Court however, feels that U.P.
Board has made no serious effort to
improve the situation except repeating its
difficulties in a stereotype form. Board
was aware in advance this time of the
decision of this court. Hence it must
declare the result by 30th September,
2000.

14. Accordingly, this petition is
allowed, U.P. Board Respondent No. 2 is
directed to complete entire work of
scrutiny by 30th September,2000 and to
declare results as indicated above in
accordance
with
law.
If
for
some
compelling reasons the Board requires
more time it will approach this Court by
filing an application in this petition for
extension of time but it is made clear that
in no case the time will not be extended
beyond 31st October, 2000 as committed
by itself.

15. It is further directed that a copy
of this judgement be sent to Chief
Secretary for information to ensure that
adequate infrastructure is being provided
to the Board for proper conductance of
examination and its scrutiny work in
future.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$' $8*867
'$7(' $//$+$%$' $8*867
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 5+=$,', -
7+( +21·%/( 5+=$,', -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

'HHS &KDQG
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6XQGHU /DO DQG 2WKHUV
3ODLQWLII
'HIHQGDQWV
«5HVSRQGHQWV
&RXQVHO IRU WKH SHWLWLRQHU
6UL 9. *XSWD
6UL 0. *XSWD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6UL $. *XSWD

&RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD $UWLFOH :ULW
SHWLWLRQ
E\
XQDXWKRULVHG
RFFXSDQW
0DLQWDLQDELOLW\