SUNITA KARUKARAN PILLAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE M.S.PARIKH Date of decision: 06/12/96 ORAL JUDGEMENT (cid:9)Rule. Service of Rule waived by Mr.P.R.Joshi, learned Advocate appearing for Mr.V.H.Patel, appearing for the respondent Board.
2.(cid:9)The petitioner, student in English medium, appeared in the S.S.C. Examination conducted in October
1996. In so far as the subject of Mathematics is concerned he reached the examination hall in time, but he was provided with the question paper in English medium 1-1/2 hours late. This resulted in petitioner failing in the examination in so far as the subject of mathematics is concerned. On ascertainment of the fact so alleged by the petitioner it has fairly been conceded by the respondent that the question paper was supplied late as alleged by the petitioner. However, the stand of the respondent is that the teacher, who attended the examination hall, has translated the paper appearing in Gujarati medium into english and that is how the present student attended the paper and failed. This explanation would itself go to show that the petitioner - student was handicapped to a large extent. In that view of the matter it would be just and proper if the appropriate direction is issued against the Board to hold re-test/re-examination of the student who has filed this petition. (cid:9)In the facts of the case and in view of what is stated above it is hereby directed that the examination of the petitioner - student in so far as the subject of mathematics is concerned, shall be held afresh on or before 31st December, 1996 by intimating appropriate date of examination to the petitioner at-least a week before such date. Rule made absolute only to the aforesaid term. No order as to costs. (cid:9)Direct service permitted. * * * * *
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gujarat High Court, on 06 Dec 1996. The bench was M S PARIKH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.