Delhi High Court: The petitioners filed several writ petitions seeking permission to appear for the Class X Board examinations, specifically for the English language paper scheduled on 26-02-2024, as well as for subsequent examinations in accordance with the CBSE schedule and to declare Clause P (2) of CBSE Notice dated 05-09-2023, titled as — Submission Of Examination Forms By Private Students For Class-X Examinations — 2024 as arbitrary and illegal and also to accept and receive the domicile certificate of the petitioner after the cut-off date. Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J., disposed of the petition and directed CBSE (respondent) to declare the results of the petitioners within 30 days, in accordance with the examination bye-laws, from the date of receipt of the order, subject to necessary verification.
The petitions arise from a common controversy involving the requirement set forth by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) regarding the submission of domicile certificates for private students, particularly those classified as Children with Special Needs (CwSN). According to Clause P (2) of the CBSE notice dated 05-05-2023, CwSN students who are bona fide residents of the National Capital Territory of Delhi must provide reasonable evidence of their domicile when submitting their examination forms.
The petitioner applied for the Class X examinations on 03-10-2023 but lacked a domicile certificate at that time. She submitted her application for the certificate in December 2023 and ultimately received it on 24-01-2024. The petitioner managed to submit the domicile certificate to CBSE on 31-01-2024 and was initially issued an admit card on 15-02-2024. However, upon arriving at the examination hall for her second paper, she was barred from entry due to issues concerning the domicile certificate.
Counsel for the petitioners contended that the stipulation for a domicile certificate, as articulated in the CBSE notice, is arbitrary and illegal. The grievance lies in the timing of their domicile certificate acquisition, which was delayed and subsequently led to the cancellation of their admit cards. It was further contended that the CBSE’s actions were unjust, arguing that the domicile certificate requirement, as per Clause P(2), was not only improper but also infringed upon the rights of students who had registered for all subjects.
Counsel for CBSE defended the implementation of the domicile certificate requirement, referencing prior judicial decisions that upheld the necessity of submitting such documentation as a fundamental condition for qualifying under the exceptions outlined in the CBSE notice.
The Court expressed strong disapproval of the action, emphasizing the unreasonableness of allowing a student to possess an admit card only to prevent her from entering the examination hall. The Court highlighted the inhumanity of the situation faced by the petitioner and ordered that she be allowed to sit for her examination, ensuring she was compensated with additional time to complete her paper. The Court extended this allowance to any other candidates who had faced similar restrictions. The Court also indicated the necessity for a more detailed examination of the legal framework underlying the CBSE’s domicile requirements, particularly in light of its implications for students who had acted in good faith.
The Court reaffirmed the decision made in the case of Vishakha v. The Controller of Examination Central Board of Secondary Education , which emphasized that the domicile certificate was a critical requirement for any student wishing to benefit from exceptions provided in the CBSE circular. The Court observed the importance of adhering to the procedures set forth in the notice, maintaining that any exceptions must be strictly construed and that petitioners could not seek waivers for conditions not met.
The Court remarked that the process of issuing and submitting the domicile certificates was delayed due to factors beyond the petitioners’ immediate control, and it is observed that no prejudice has been caused to the respondent-CBSE or any third party because of this delay. Furthermore, allowing the petitioners’ results to be processed and declared will not cause any logistical difficulties for the respondent-CBSE.
Thus, the Court reinforced the expectation that educational bodies must not only uphold the rule of law but also exercise discretion in a manner that considers the circumstances faced by students in their quest for education.
The Court directed CBSE to declare the results of the petitioners within 30 days, in accordance with the examination byelaws.
[Kanishka v Central Board of Secondary Education, W.P.(C) 2841/2024, decided on 27-09-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Sahil Mongia, Mr. Yash Yadav and Ms. Sanjana Samor, Advocates for petitioner
Mr. Sanjay Khanna, Ms. Pragya Bhushan, Mr. Karandeep Singh, Mr. Tarandeep Singh and Mr. Amit Singh, Advs. for CBSE
LPA 149/2024
The post appeared first on .