# BOARD OF HIGH SCHOOL & INTERMEDIATE EDUCAA TION, U.P. & OTHERS ' v. KUMARI CHfITRA SRIVASTAVA & OTHERS

- **Citation:** [1970] 3 S.C.R. 266
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1969-11-20
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1191 of 1967
- **Bench:** S. M. Sikri, G. K. Mitter
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/board-of-high-school-intermediate-educaa-tion-u-p-others-v-kumari-chfitra-4909
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

N11tur..'ll Justice-Board of exa1nination
C(lncelling
result
without
~,pportunity to carrdidate-Nofice if necessary.
The respondent appeared in the Intermediate examination and passed,
but the appeHant, instead of declaring her result, addressed a letter on
May 24. 1961, to the Principal of the college in which the 'respondent
,.,,as studying, making enquiries regarding
the respondent's
attendance.
AccQrding to the regulations. a candidate must attend 75% of the lectures
gi~en in each subject. The Principal, by her letter dated June 14, 1961,
replied that the respondent was at one time short of attendance, that she
made good the shortage in all sub.iects except one, but the shortage in
that subject was due to the fact that" lectUres were not given in that subject the lecturer having been on leave.
By iL< letter dated July 6, 1961,
1he appeUant can~lled the respondent's result and no reference was made
to the Principal's Jetter in the appellant's Jetter.
The respondent thereupon filed a writ petition challenging the appelh1nt's order cancelling the result, and the High Court allowed the petition.
Jn appeal to this Court,
HELD : The appellant should have given an opportunity to the res·
pondent to present her case and pursuade the appellant not to cancel her
result. [269 CJ
Whether a duty arises in a particular case to issue a show cause notice
before inflicting a penalty does not depend on the authority's satisfaction
that the person to be penalised has no defence but on the nature of the
order proposed to be passe_d.
In the pre·sent case, the impugned order
imposed a penalty on the respondent as she was denied the fruits of her
Jabour, and when passing it, the appellant was exercising quasi-judicial
functions. [269 0-FJ
CIVJL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1191 of
1967.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
May 23, 1962 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.
592 of<4%',~; .
.
C. B. Aganva/a and 0. P. Rana, for the appellants.
The respondent did not appear.
B
c
D
E
F
G
The Judgment of the Court as delivered by
H
Sikri, J.
This appeal by special leave is directed against the
.iudgment of the Allahabad High Court whereby it allowed the
B
c
D
E
F
G
II
U. P. BOARD I'. CHITRA SRIVASTAVA (Sikri, J.)
267
writ petition filed by the respondent, Kumari Chittra Srivastava,
hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, and quashed the impugned
order but left it open to the Board of High School and lntennediate Education, hereinafter referred to. as the Board, to reconsider the case after giving the petitioner a chance to offer her
explanation.
The facts are not in dispute and the only question which arises
is whether in the circumstances the petitioner was entitled to an
opportunity to represent her case before the Board prior to the
passing of the impugned order.
The relevant facts in brief are these.
The petitioner was in
1959-60 session a student of Basant Girls Intermediate College,
Varanasi.
She appeared at the Intermediate examination in 1960
hut failed.
She then joined the Government Inter College for
Girls at Jaunpur.
Her name was sent up for Intermediate examination to be held in l 961 by the Principal.
She appeared in
the examination but her result was not declared by the Board.
On May 24, 1961, the Board addressed a letter to the Principal
making enquiries regarding the attendance of the petitioner.
According to the regulations framed by the Board no candidate
can be presented for the Intermediate examination unless he/she
has attended during two academical years 75% of lectures given
in each subject in which the candidate is to be examined. In
the case of a failed candidate, like the petitioner, the percentage
'hall be calculated for
one
academical year, but Regulation
5(xiii) enables the head of a recognised institution to condone the
deficiency in certain cases.
This regulation reads :
"(xiii) The rule regarding minimum attendance shall
be strictly enforced.
The head of the recognised i

## Text

266
BOARD OF HIGH SCHOOL & INTERMEDIATE EDUCAA
TION, U.P. & OTHERS
'
v.
KUMARI CHfITRA SRIVASTAVA & OTHERS
November 20, 1969
(S. M. SIKRI AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.]
N11tur..'ll Justice-Board of exa1nination
C(lncelling
result
without
~,pportunity to carrdidate-Nofice if necessary.
The respondent appeared in the Intermediate examination and passed,
but the appeHant, instead of declaring her result, addressed a letter on
May 24. 1961, to the Principal of the college in which the 'respondent
,.,,as studying, making enquiries regarding
the respondent's
attendance.
AccQrding to the regulations. a candidate must attend 75% of the lectures
gi~en in each subject. The Principal, by her letter dated June 14, 1961,
replied that the respondent was at one time short of attendance, that she
made good the shortage in all sub.iects except one, but the shortage in
that subject was due to the fact that" lectUres were not given in that subject the lecturer having been on leave.
By iL< letter dated July 6, 1961,
1he appeUant can~lled the respondent's result and no reference was made
to the Principal's Jetter in the appellant's Jetter.
The respondent thereupon filed a writ petition challenging the appelh1nt's order cancelling the result, and the High Court allowed the petition.
Jn appeal to this Court,
HELD : The appellant should have given an opportunity to the res·
pondent to present her case and pursuade the appellant not to cancel her
result. [269 CJ
Whether a duty arises in a particular case to issue a show cause notice
before inflicting a penalty does not depend on the authority's satisfaction
that the person to be penalised has no defence but on the nature of the
order proposed to be passe_d.
In the pre·sent case, the impugned order
imposed a penalty on the respondent as she was denied the fruits of her
Jabour, and when passing it, the appellant was exercising quasi-judicial
functions. [269 0-FJ
CIVJL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1191 of
1967.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
May 23, 1962 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.
592 of<4%',~; .
.
C. B. Aganva/a and 0. P. Rana, for the appellants.
The respondent did not appear.
B
c
D
E
F
G
The Judgment of the Court as delivered by
H
Sikri, J.
This appeal by special leave is directed against the
.iudgment of the Allahabad High Court whereby it allowed the
B
c
D
E
F
G
II
U. P. BOARD I'. CHITRA SRIVASTAVA (Sikri, J.)
267
writ petition filed by the respondent, Kumari Chittra Srivastava,
hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, and quashed the impugned
order but left it open to the Board of High School and lntennediate Education, hereinafter referred to. as the Board, to reconsider the case after giving the petitioner a chance to offer her
explanation.
The facts are not in dispute and the only question which arises
is whether in the circumstances the petitioner was entitled to an
opportunity to represent her case before the Board prior to the
passing of the impugned order.
The relevant facts in brief are these.
The petitioner was in
1959-60 session a student of Basant Girls Intermediate College,
Varanasi.
She appeared at the Intermediate examination in 1960
hut failed.
She then joined the Government Inter College for
Girls at Jaunpur.
Her name was sent up for Intermediate examination to be held in l 961 by the Principal.
She appeared in
the examination but her result was not declared by the Board.
On May 24, 1961, the Board addressed a letter to the Principal
making enquiries regarding the attendance of the petitioner.
According to the regulations framed by the Board no candidate
can be presented for the Intermediate examination unless he/she
has attended during two academical years 75% of lectures given
in each subject in which the candidate is to be examined. In
the case of a failed candidate, like the petitioner, the percentage
'hall be calculated for
one
academical year, but Regulation
5(xiii) enables the head of a recognised institution to condone the
deficiency in certain cases.
This regulation reads :
"(xiii) The rule regarding minimum attendance shall
be strictly enforced.
The head of the recognised institution may condone a deficiency in attendance of not
more than:
(a) ten days in the case of a candidate for the High
School Examination; and
(b) ten lectures (including periods of practical work,
if any) given in each subject in the case of a candidate
for the Intermediate Examination.
All cases in which this privilege is exercised shall be
reported to the Director of Education as the Chairman
of the Board.
In the cases of faile<;I or detained candidates whose
attendance of one year will be taken into account, the
shortage to be condoned shall be reduced to half."
268
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 3 S.C.R.
The Principal received the letter when on vacation outside JaunA
pur.
The Principal replied on June 14, 1961, saying that a
proper reply to paragraphs 1 and 2 of the letter will be sent after
July 8, 1961.
She, however, stated:
"When Km. Chitra Srivastava absented herself for a
pretty Jong period on account of her illness, the position
B
was explained to her, besides informing her guardian
also who was even called to the office and acquainted
with the circumstances.
At that time. it was possible
for her to make good this
shortage by
her regular
attendance.
The teacher in Home Science took leave in February.
1961.
Chitra was short in attendance in other subjects also.
but she made good the shortage by her regular attendance.
When, during the days the classes were held.
lectures in other subjects were held and the girl attended there, it was not considered proper to detain her
from appearing at the examination on account of her
absence from lectures in a subject in which the required
lectures were not held.
I got the student admitted to the examination as T
was confident that the officers of the Board will agree
with my view."
The substance of the Jetter was that the shortage in kcturcs
was due to the lecturer taking leave.
The Board was, however. impatient.
It is not clear whetl\>r
this letter was received by the Board because no reference to it is
made in the letter dated July 6. 1961.
The Board wrote:
"In continuation of this office letter No. E.I./6 I 7,
dated 24th May, 1961 and telegram dated 24th May.
1961 I have the honour to inform that you have not furnished the desired information about the student Km.
Chitra Srivastava, roll no. 50452.
From your previoth
letter No. 143/E dated 6th May. 1961. it is learnt that
the admission of the student by you to the examination
by condonin~ h~r absence from seven lectures on the
subject of Home Science was contrary to rules. Hence
the student's Inter Examination of 196 I is
cancelled.
Kindly communicate this to the student under intimation
to this office."
c
f)
E
F
(,
ll
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
U. P. BOARD v. CHITRA SRIVASTAVA (Sikri, J.)
269
The Principal replied on July 11, 1961, giving details of
the lectures attended and requested that the order be cancelled
and the severe punishment be not awarded to the petitioner.
On October 6, 1961, the petitioner filed a petition under
Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the impugned order dated
July 6, 1961.
Mathur, J., dismissed it summarily.
On appeal.
Srivastava and Katju, JJ., allowed the petition, as mentioned
earlier.
They were of the view that the Board, while cancelling
the examination, acted in a quasi-judicial capacity.
The Board
was "by cancelling the examination inflicting a penalty" and if
opportunity had been given to the petitioner to present her case
>he might have persuaded the Board not to cancel the examination.
·
The learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. C. B. Aggarwal.
contends that the facts are not in dispute and it is further clear
that no useful purpose would have been served if the Board had
served a show-cause notice on the petitioner.
He says that in
'iew of these circumstances it was not necessary for the Board
to have issued a show-cause notice.
We are unable to accept
this contention.
Whether a duty arises in a particular case to
issue a show cause notice before inflicting a penalty does. not depend
on the authority's satisfaction that the person to be penalised has
no defence but on the nature of the order proposed to be passed.
We agree with the High Court that the impugned order imposed a penally. The petitioner has appeared in the examination
and answered all the qu.,stion papers.
According to her she had
passed. To deny her ihe fruits of her labour cannot but h: cailed
a penalty.
We are unable to appreciate the contention that the
Board in ·'cancelling her examination" was not exercising quasijudicial functions.
The learned counsel urges that this would be
casting a heavy burden on the Board.
Principles of natural justice are to some minds burdensome but this price-a small price
indeed-has to be paid if we desire a society governed by the
rule of law.
We should not be taken to have decided that this
rule will also apply when a candidate is refused admission to an
examination.
We are not concerned with this question and say
nothing about it.
The learned counsel invites us to hold that the decision of
the Board was on the facts correct and that the Board had no
power to condone the· shortage of 2 lectures.
But we decline to
go into these questions.
We are not sitting as a court of appeal
;md it is for the Board to decide after giving an opportunity to
the petitioner and pass such orders as it thinks fit. Whether it
has the power to condone the shortage of lectures is for it, at
least in the first instance, to decide.
270
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970) 3 S.C.R.
The learned counsel further invites us to say that the possible
courses which the petitioner's counsel had outlined before the High
Court will not be legal or justified.
The petitioner's counsel had
pointed out that the Board could have been persuaded to adopt
·wme of the following courses :
"(I) To accept ihe explanation of the principal as
valid.
(2) To condone the shortage of two lectures which
the Principal could not condone.
The question whether
the Board had power to condone shortage was raised in
the Board of High School and Intermediate Educaticn
Uttar Pradesh Allahabad and others versus G. Vishwanath Nayar but was not decided and was left open.
lt
is urged on behalf of the appellant that the power to admit a candidate to an examination vests in the Board.
The Regulations only provide the extent to which shortage in attendance can be condoned by the heads of institutions.
There is nothing in the Regulations to limit
the power of the Board itself to admit a candidate to
an examination after condoning shortage which C•'Uld
not be condoned by the head of the institution.
(3) After noting that a technical breach of rules had
been committed the Board or the Chainmrn may liave
decided not to take any action.
(4) The Board may have framed a new regulation
with retrospective effect either permitting the head of
the institution to condone a shortage in a case lik~ that
of the appellant or permitting the Board itself to make
the necessary condonation in such cases.
(5) The Board could have given an
authoritativ~
interpretation of the words 'lectures given' in clause
(iii) of regulation 5 of chapter XII and decided whether
the words covered such cases where the students were
present to attend the lecture but it could not be arrungcd because of some unavoidable reason."
But, like the High Court. we are not called upon to 1iro,,ouncc on
their legality or appropriateness at this stage.
In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed.
As the pcti.
lioner (now respondent) is not represented there will be no or.Mr
a:-; to costs.
V.P.S.
Appeal dismi,1:1,cd.
A
B
c
D
E
F
c;
H