Akshara Vaishnav D/o Shri Ravi Shankar Vaishnav, Aged About v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Secondary

Judgment

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Secondary Education Department, Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur 302005

2. Chairman, Rajasthan Board Of Secondary Education, Ajmer, Police Lines, Ajmer (Rajasthan)- 305001

3. Secretary, Rajasthan Board Of Secondary Education, Ajmer, Police Lines, Ajmer (Rajasthan)- 305001

4. Chief Controller Of Examinations, Rajasthan Board Of Secondary Education, Ajmer, Police Lines, Ajmer (Rajasthan)- 305001 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr.Harshad Kapoor For Respondent(s) : Mr.Prahlad Singh with Mr.Gaurav Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 06/08/2025

1. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction against the respondent-Board of Secondary Education to permit the petitioner to appear in the supplementary examination in the Subjects of Mathematics and Sanskrit, which are commencing from 06.08.2025.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the main Secondary Examinations, 2025 were conducted by the [2025:RJ-JP:30324] (2 of 7) [CW-11934/2025] respondent-Board, w.e.f., 06.03.2025 till 04.04.2025. Counsel submits that the petitioner appeared in four subjects, i.e., English, Hindi, Social Science and Science up to 21.03.2025, but in the intervening night of 23.03.2025 and 24.03.2025, the petitioner fell from the roof and sustained several injuries in spine and she remained hospitalised, w.e.f. 24.03.2025 till 29.03.2025. Counsel submits that in between, i.e., 25.03.2025, the petitioner’s father submitted an application to the respondent-Board, to grant her the opportunity to appear in the supplementary examination as she is not in a position to appear in the main examination for the subjects of Mathematics and Sanskrit, which were scheduled to be held on 26.03.2025 and 04.04.2025.

3. Counsel submits that when the respondent-Board did not allow the petitioner to appear in the supplementary examination of the abovemetioned two papers, the petitioner filed a suit for injunction against the respondent-Board before the Court of Civil Judge, Ajmer City (North) along-with temporary injunction application seeking interim prayer in the form of direction against the respondent-Board to allow the petitioner to appear in the supplementary examination. Counsel submits that the temporary injunction application was rejected against which a Civil Misc. Appeal was preferred before the Appellate Court. Counsel submits that at the relevant time, there was strike of Ministerial Staff of the Sub-ordinate Courts and the Courts were not functioning, hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner submitted an application before the Trial Court as well as the before the Appellate Court seeking permission to withdraw the suit along- with the appeal with liberty to file writ petition before this Court. [2025:RJ-JP:30324] (3 of 7) [CW-11934/2025] Counsel submits that the permission was granted to the petitioner by both Courts and thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11047/2025. Counsel submits that by the time, the strike was over, hence, the said petition was withdrawn with liberty to file application for revival of the suit and misc. appeal. Counsel submits that immediately thereafter, an application was submitted before the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court for revival of the suit as well as the appeal. Counsel submits that the appeal was revived and the arguments were heard and the case was posted for pronouncement of the order, but the order could not be pronounced by the Appellate Court, but the suit was not revived and the revival application was still pending. Counsel submits that the next date before the Trial Court for revival of the suit was

04.08.2025. Counsel submits that since the commencement date of the supplementary examination was approaching, i.e.,

06.08.2025, hence, under the compelling circumstance, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of filing this writ petition.

4. Counsel submits that the petitioner has secured distinction marks in all the four papers for which she appeared for prior to her accident. Counsel submits that during the pendency of this instant writ petition, the application submitted by the petitioner seeking revival of the suit has been rejected by the Trial Court vide order dated 04.08.2025. Counsel submits that under the grave circumstances of the case, interference of this Court is warranted. [2025:RJ-JP:30324] (4 of 7) [CW-11934/2025]

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Board opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that the instant case is a gross-example of mockery of the judicial system as once the petitioner has availed the remedy of filing suit and misc. appeal against the order passed on temporary injunction application submitted by the petitioner, there was no occasion to withdraw the suit as well as the appeal and thereafter, there was no occasion available with her to withdraw the writ petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11047/2025 before this Court. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the relief sought for cannot be granted to the petitioner.

6. On merits as well the counsel for the respondent-Board opposes the prayer by saying that as per Chapter XVII of the Rajasthan Secondary Education Regulations, 1957 (for short, “the Regulations of 1957”), the petitioner is not eligible to appear in the supplementary examination as she has failed in two subjects, i.e., Mathematics and Sanskrit. Counsel submits that a candidate is eligible to appear in the supplementary examination only if he/she has failed in one paper alone, but herein the instant case, the petitioner has failed in two papers. Counsel submits that it hardly makes any difference whether the petitioner appeared in the earlier examination or she remained absent in the two papers. The factual aspect of the matter is that she remained absent in two papers, hence, she was treated as fail, hence, under these circumstances, as per the provisions contained under Chapter XVII of the Regulations of 1957, the petitioner is not eligible to appear in the supplementary examination. [2025:RJ-JP:30324] (5 of 7) [CW-11934/2025]

7. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.

8. This fact is not in dispute that the main Secondary School Examination for the year 2025 of the petitioner commenced from

06.03.2025 and the last date of examination was 04.04.2025. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner has appeared in four subjects, i.e., Hindi, English, Social Science and Science till

21.03.2025. This fact is also not in dispute that the petitioner met with an accident falling from the roof in the intervening night of

23.03.2025 and 24.03.2025 wherein she sustained head and spine injuries and she remained hospitalised till 29.03.2025. This fact is also not in dispute that an application was submitted by her father to the respondent-Board on 22.04.2025 with a request to provide her with an opportunity to appear in the supplementary examination for the aforesaid two papers, i.e., Mathematics and Sanskrit. Section 4 of Chapter XVI of the Regulations of 1957 deals with the provisions with such like situation which has arisen in the present case and Section 7 of Chapter XVI of the Regulations of 1957 says if a candidate who suffering from sickness of other adequate cause is unable to present himself for an examination, he/she shall not be entitled to refund of his fee provided that the Board on an application from the candidate, who absented himself from the examination may permit him to present himself at the ensuing examination or failing that also at the next following examination without payment of any further fee, being held over for the next examination.

9. It appears that when the petitioner was not allowed to appear in the supplementary examination by the respondent- [2025:RJ-JP:30324] (6 of 7) [CW-11934/2025] Board, the petitioner approached the Civil Court by way of filing a civil suit seeking injunction against the Board along-with an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, however, the same was rejected against which a Civil Misc. Appeal was also preferred by the petitioner.

10. On account of ill advice, the appeal as well as the suit was withdrawn and the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11047/2025, however, the said petition was also withdrawn by the petitioner seeking liberty to move application for revival of this suit as well as Civil Misc. Appeal and the permission was granted by this Court vide order dated 30.07.2025.

11. After passing of the aforesaid order 30.07.2025, the petitioner has filed two different applications, one before the Civil Court and another before the Appellate Court, the Appellate Court has allowed the application and revived the appeal to its original number and after hearing arguments of both sides, posted the case for 01.08.2025.

12. It appears that the Appellate Court was of the view that since the suit had not been revived till date, the appeal could not be decided by the Appellate Court. This fact is not in dispute that the application seeking revival of the suit was submitted and the same remained pending till 04.08.2025 and in the meantime, the date of commencement of the supplementary examination was fixed for 06.08.2025, hence under the compelling circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the instant writ petition. [2025:RJ-JP:30324] (7 of 7) [CW-11934/2025]

13. As per Chapter XVI of the Regulations of 1957, a candidate can appear in the supplementary examination in case he/ she shall remain absent on account of being sick and/or suffering from illness, on the contrary Chapter XVII of the Regulations of 1957 says that a candidate who has failed in more than two subjects is not eligible to appear in the examination.

14. This factual aspect of the matter would be considered by the Trial Court at appropriate stage whether the petitioner is eligible to appear in the aforesaid examination or not.

15. Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, when the supplementary examination of the petitioner is commencing from 06.08.2025, the application submitted by the petitioner seeking revival of the suit is still lying pending for its adjudication before the Trial Court, and the Appellate Court has already revived the Misc. Appeal, the petitioner is allowed to appear in the supplementary examination from 07.08.2025 purely on a provisional basis, as an interim gap arrangement.

16. The instant writ petition stands disposed of by issuing directions to the Board to permit the petitioner to appear in the aforesaid examination purely on a provisional basis.

17. It is made clear that the result of the petitioner shall not be declared till disposal of the suit by the Trial Court and she would not claim any equity, in case, the suit is adversely decided against her. Aayush Sharma /164 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J