JUDGMENT N.D. Ojha, J.
1. This special appeal Is directed against an order of a learned Single Judge dated December 22, 1971 in Civil Misc. Writ No. 4669 of 1971. The respondent passed his VIII Standard Examination in December, 1967 from the St. Joseph High School, Allahabad. Thereafter he discontinued his studies in the aforesaid school and appeared in the High School Examination held in March/April 1969 as a private candidate. It seems, taking the view that the respondent was not entitled to appear in the said examination his result was withheld by the Board and he was informed that unless he obtained exemption from the State Government under Section 9 (4) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) his result could not be declared. The respondent thereafter made numerous representations to the State Government but without any success. He then filed the aforesaid writ petition for quashing of the orders of the State Government refusing to grant exemption to him and for a mandamus directing the Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Education to declare his result. He also made a prayer for a mandamus commanding the State Government to grant the necessary exemption after considering his various applications made in this behalf. The writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge on December 22, 1971 whereby the Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Education was directed to declare the result of the respondent's examination. Aggrieved the State Government of Uttar Pradesh and the Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Education have filed the present appeal.
2. The learned Standing Counsel has reiterated his submission which was made before the learned Single Judge, viz., that the respondent was not entitled to appear in the High School Examination held in March/April 1969. In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon Regulation 10 (i) (a) (i) (g) and Regulation 11 of the Regulations framed under the Act as also upon the definition of the words "academic year" or "academical year" as contained in Chapter I of the said Regulations.
The word "academic year" has been defined as under:
3. It was urged that the respondent having passed his VIII Standard Examination in December, 1967 from St. Joseph High School, Allahabad, which was an' Anglo-Indian School as contemplated by the aforesaid Regulations was not entitled to appear in the High School Examination held in March/April 1969 because of the bar created by the aforesaid Regulations. Learned Standing Counsel contended that two academical years from December, 1967 within the meaning of Regulation 10 (i) (A) (i) (g) would have elapsed on June, 30, 1970. It was also urged that had the respondent continued his studies as a regular student in St. Joseph School he would have been eligible for admission to the Cambridge School Certificate Examination in December, 1971, which would be academical year beginning from July 1, 1971 and ending on June 30, 1972 and the preceding academical year as contemplated by Regulation 11 would have been the year commencing from July 1, 1970, and ending on June 30, 1971. It was thus urged that the respondent was entitled to appear in the High School Examination as a private candidate in the academical year commencing from July 1, 1970 and ending on June 30, 1971.
4. In paragraph 2 of the writ petition it has been stated that it was common practice that after passing VIII Standard in December of any year, a student joins IX Class in January of succeeding year and appears in High School Examination conducted by the Board of High School and intermediate Education in the month of March/April of year succeeding next to the year of his passing VIII Standard as a regular student or a private student. Sri Har Prasad Tewari, Deputy Secretary of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P., Allahabad, has filed a counter-affidavit, in paragraph 4 whereof he has admitted that after passing Standard VIII from any Anglo-Indian Institution recognised by the Education Department in the month of December of any year if a student joins Class IX in any institution recognised by the Board in January of the succeeding year and passes Class IX Examination in May/June he would be eligible to appear in the High School Examination of the succeeding year as a private or regular candidate.
5. The definition of "academic year" or "academical year" contains a qualification e.g., unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context. If the interpretation made to the "aforesaid Regulations by the learned Standing Counsel is accepted it would render a number of Regulations unworkable and militate even against the position admitted in paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit. In this connection it would be necessary to examine certain Regulations connected with the conduct of the examination. Regulation 5 of Chapter XII of the Regulations deals with regular candidates Its Sub-clause (vi) reads:
"In the case of failed or detained candidates of the High School or Intermediate Examination of the Board, the percentage shall be calculated for one academical year only. The attendance put in during the academic year at the end of which the candidate wishes to appear shall be calculated ............................"
It is not disputed that if a candidate has failed in the High School Examination held in March/April 1971 he would be eligible for appearing again in the said examination to be held in March/April 1972. The academic year as defined would end on June 30, 1972 and if the words "the academic year at the end of which" in this Regulation are strictly construed it would convey no meaning inasmuch as the months of March/April cannot be said to be the end of academic year. In the context of this rule, therefore, the academic year would mean the year beginning from July 1 and ending immediately preceding the date on which the examination commences in March/April. Regulation 5 (viii) lays down that the first academical year, in the case of a candidate who is declared successful at the High School Examination as a result of scrutiny of marks shall be taken to commence tea days subsequent to the communication of the result of the scrutiny. Regulation 21 (2) lays down that an application for scrutiny has to be made by July 15, in respect of the main examination and by August 31, in respect of the supplementary examination. It follows that the scrutiny of marks cannot take place any time before these two dates and its result would be communicated much later. For the purposes of Regulation 5 (viii), therefore, the academic year would commence not from July 1, but from the date of communication of the result of scrutiny of marks which would be much later than July 1. Regulation 7. (a) lays down that the decision of the head of a recognised institution regarding the promotion of students from Class IX to Class X or from Class XI to Class XII shall be final by the end of June each year. It is not disputed that if a student had been promoted from Class IX to Class X by the end of June he would be.
entitled to appear as a private candidate in the High School Examination to be held in March/April of the succeeding year under Regulation 10 (i) (A) (ii). The said Regulation, reads thus:
"Candidates who have passed Class IX or an equivalent examination of a recognized institution within or outside Uttar Pradesh, provided one academical year has elapsed from the date of their passing the said examination."
If the words "one academical year has elapsed from the date of their passing the said examination" are strictly construed this Regulation would become unworkable. Take an illustration: a student passes his Class IX examination in the month of June, 1971, the next academical year would start on July 1, 1971 and would elapse on June 30, 1972 and on a strict application of the definition of academical year such student would be entitled to appear in the High School Examination not in March/April 1972 but in March/April 1973. On a parity of reasoning Regulation 10 (i) (A) (i) (b) also would become unworkable.
6. We may also refer to Regulation 3 of Chapter XIV which deals with Intermediate Examination of regular candidates which lays down that no candidate shall be admitted to the intermediate Examination unless two academical years shall have elapsed from the date of his or her passing the High School Examination or an equivalent examination. It is common knowledge that the result of the High School Examination is normally declared in the month of June and the Intermediate Examination is held in the months of March/ April. If the contention of the learned Standing Counsel is accepted a student passing his High School Examination in the month of June 1971 would be admitted for appearing in the Intermediate Examination only in he examination to be held in March/April 1974 and not March/April 1973. From a perusal of the various Regulations dealing with the Examinations conducted by the Board it appears that in their context academical year is not necessarily of full twelve months. It also means the year commencing From July 1 (and in some cases even after :hat date vide Regulation 5 (viii)) and ending in the date immediately preceding the date of the commencement of the examination which is normally held in March/April and the definition of the words "academic year' or 'academical year' to that extent would be repugnant to the context. From the scheme of the various Regulations referred to above it would further appear that the case of a private candidate has not been sought to be put on a different footing than that of a regular candidate. The only difference between these two sets of candidates seems to be as contained in Regulation 8 which defines private candidates as persons seeking admission to an examination without putting in the requisite amount of attendance prescribed for it at an institution recognized by the Board. In view of the aforesaid discussion and keeping in view the facts stated in paragraph 2 of the writ petition and paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit we are of the opinion that the respondent was entitled to appear in the High, School Examination held in March/April; 1969. If the respondent had got himself admitted in Class IX in some recognised institution in the month of January, 1968 he would have passed the said class latest by the month of June 1968, and under Regulation 10 (i) (A) (ii) he would have been entitled to appear in the High School Examination in March/April 1969. There seems to be no reason why a different treatment be meted out to the respondent if he chose not to join any school but to appear as a private candidate in the High School Examination in March/April 1969. For the purposes of Regulation 10 (i) (A) (i) (g) the first academical year after the respondent passed his VIII Standard Examination in December, 1967 would on the analogy of Regulation 5 (viii) commence from December, 1967 and elapse in the month of June 1968 and the second would commence from July 1, 1968 and elapse on the date immediately preceding the date when the High School Examination was held in March/ April, 1969.
7. So far as Regulation 11 is concerned it has been conceded that if the respondent would have continued his studies in the St. Joseph High School he would have appeared in the Cambridge Certificate Examination held in December, 1971. The words used in Regulation 11 are "academical year preceding that in which he would have been eligible for admission ....". Regulation 11 does not contemplate the academical year in which a student would have actually appeared in the Cambridge School Certificate Examination but the year in which he would have been eligible for admission to the said examination. In our opinion if the respondent would have continued his studies he would have become eligible for admission to the Cambridge School Certificate Examination on his passing X Standard Examination in December, 1969. December 1969 would fall within the academic year commencing from July 1, 1969 and ending on June 30, 1970, The academical year preceding would be the one commencing from July 1, 1968 and ending on June 30, 1969 and on this interpretation the respondent was entitled to appeal as a private candidate in the High School Examination held in March/April 1969.
8. Learned Counsel for the respondent also urged that a number of students placed under the circumstances similar to that of the respondent were granted the exemption by the State Government and there was no justification why the respondent was singled out for a different treatment. Since however, the writ petition of the respondent succeeds on the point already discussed above we do not consider it necessary to deal with this point.
9. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.