The petitioner who is the student of the 3rd respondent School in Class X is aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the respondents in permitting the petitioner to appear for the improvement examination for the Problem Solving Assessment (PSA) for the Xth Standard that was scheduled on 18.01.2014. This Court had admitted the writ petition on 17.01.2014 and had issued an interim order on the same day permitting the petitioner to appear for the improvement examination of Problem Solving Assessment (PSA) of the Xth Standard scheduled on 18.01.2014. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. Though the main contention raised by the petitioner in the writ petition is that there was inadvertent mistake on the part of the 3rd respondent School in not properly recording the payment of fee, the 3rd respondent has objected these allegations in the counter affidavit filed by them on 07.04.2014. However it is not necessary to adjudicate on the correctness of the rival claims made between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent in view of the averments in paragraph 7 W.P.(C)No.1738 of 2014 2 to 9 of the said counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent which reads as follows :
“7. It is submitted that the parents of the petitioner were informed that if a request for permission is forthcoming from their side, the same could be forwarded to the 2nd respondent by the school. Accordingly, a request dated 16-1-2014 (Exhibit P1) was addressed to the school by the father of the petitioner along with the requisite demand draft(Exhibit P2) for the sum of Rs. 100 towards PSA examination fee. The above request was sent via e-mail to the 2nd respondent by the school on 16-1-2014. And a hard copy of the same along demand draft was sent by speed post to the 2nd respondent on 17-1-2014.
8. It is submitted that on 17-1-2014 I was informed over telephone by the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to take the PSA examination slated to be held on 18-1-2014. Accordingly, the petitioner was permitted to take the examination.
9. It is submitted that the school took all necessary steps promptly and diligently so as to ensure that the petitioner could take the PSA examination. There were no mistakes or errors or negligence on the part of the school qua the above issue. The school always acted in best interests of the petitioner. This respondent has no objection to the release of the result with held by the CBSC, if the Hon'ble Court will so permit and direct.”
3. It is submitted by the petitioner's counsel that the respondents have complied with the interim order granted by this Court on 17.01.2014 and had permitted the petitioner to appear for the said examination. Now in the above said averments in the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent, it is stated that the petitioner could be permitted to appear for the PSA examination that was held on 18.01.2014 and that the respondent has no objection to release the results of the petitioner which was withheld, if this Court so directs. In view W.P.(C)No.1738 of 2014 3 of the above said stand taken by the 3rd respondent, this Court passed an interim order today which reads as follows:
“In view of the averments of the 3rd respondent school in paragraph 7 to 9 of their counter affidavit dated 07.04.2014, there will be an order directing the 1st and 2nd respondent to publish results of the petitioner with regard to the examination of Problem Solving Assessment (PSA) of the 10th standard held on 18/01/14 and to communicate the results of the petitioner's examination to the 3rd respondent school.”
4. In the light of the aforementioned stand taken by the respondents and in view of the fact that the petitioner was already permitted to appear for the examination held on 18.01.2014, it is directed in the interests of justice that the appearance of the petitioner in the above said examination shall be treated as regular and lawful for all purposes. Accordingly, it is directed that the results of the petitioner shall also be declared by the 1st and 2nd respondent and the same shall be communicated to the 3rd respondent School without any further delay.
With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands finally disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE AV