Supreme Court of India
KUSUM LATAversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2002 INSC 318
- Decided
- 31 July 2002
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- Y K SABHARWAL
Holding
When an eligibility clause mandates 50% aggregate marks in the 10+2 examination, the aggregate must be calculated on the five compulsory subjects, excluding any optional additional subject.
Summary
Kusum Lata applied for admission to a Diploma in Education in Haryana and qualified the entrance test. The authorities later denied her admission, claiming she did not achieve the required 50% aggregate in her CBSE 10+2 results because the aggregate was calculated over six subjects, including an optional sixth subject. The petitioner submitted a CBSE letter stating that only five subjects are mandatory for passing, and the sixth is optional. The High Court held that she failed to meet the eligibility criterion and dismissed her writ petition. The Supreme Court reversed this view, interpreting the eligibility clause to require the aggregate be computed only on the compulsory five subjects, thereby satisfying the 50% requirement, and ordered that she be admitted. The appeals were allowed and the parties were each to bear their own costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the eligibility clause requiring at least 50% aggregate marks in the 10+2 examination must be calculated on all subjects appearing in the mark sheet or only on the compulsory subjects required for passing the examination.
Subjects
admission eligibilityaggregate marksCBSE 10+2optional subjectdiploma in educationinterpretation of eligibility clause
Judgment
KUSUM LATA A
v.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
JULY 31, 2002
[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] B
Education/Educational Institutions:
Admission-Eligibility clause stipulating that a candidate should have
passed the qualifYing examination with certain minimum aggregate marks-' . c
Candidate obtained requisite marks in five subjects-Admission denied on the
ground that requisite marks not obtained taking into account the additional
subject-Held, the only reasonable interpretation having regard to the spirit
ofthe clause providing for eligibility conditions as implicit is aggregate marks
secured in those subjects which are necessary to pass the said examination D
and not the marks secured in additional subject-Directions issued to admit
appellants.
. Appellant applied for admission in the Diploma Conrse in Education;
she was admitted in the entrance test and qualified the same. When
appellant appeared for interview she was told by the authorities that she E
was ineligible to appear in the test having not secured the requisite marks
in 1o+2 Examination of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE).
Appellant submitted a letter issued by C.B.S.E. stating that to qualify 10+2
Examination a student is required to obtain requisite marks in five subjects
and. the sixth subject is an optional subject. Appellant had taken the stand F
that having secured requisite aggregate marks in five subjects she became
eligible to appear in the test. On denial of admission, appellant filed a writ
petition which was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that she
did not satisfy the minimum prescribed percentage of marks as per
eligibility condition. Hence this appeal and the connected appeals.
G
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1. When the eligibility clause stipulates that a candidate
should have passed to+2 Examhation with at least 50% aggregate marks,
it is implicit that the aggregate marks are required to he calculated keeping
359
H
360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. ,J_
A in view only the subjects which are necessary to pass 10+2 Examination
and not the marks of the additional subject which is not taken into account
for passing the examination. This is the only reasonable interpretation
having regard to the spirit of the clause providing for eligibility conditions.
The relevant factor is to see what is necessary to pass 10+2 Examination
B conducted by CBSE and on that basis decide whether a candidate fulfils
or not the requirement of the eligibility clause. If seen from this
perspective, the aggregate marks would have to be worked out having
regard to the marks obtained in five subjects and not in the additional
subject which is not taken into account for passing the examination.
[362-G, H; 363-A, BJ
c 1.2. Only difference in the marks-sheet issued by the CBSE as
compared to BSE Haryana is that it does not show tOtal after five subjects
and in fact no total is shown. The relevant consideration is not the manner
of issue of the marks-sheet or the different proforma which may be
adopted by one Board or the other but to go into real object behind the
D clause. There would have been no difficulty if the proforma of CBSE was
similar to the one adopted by Haryana. In that eventuality it would not
have been possible to decline admission to the appellants on the ground
of not satisfying minimum prescribed percentage under the eligibility
condition. This kind of approach would be arbitrary and discriminatory.
E Thus, the interpretation placed by the High Court is hyper-technical and
erroneous. Such an interpretation cannot be sustained. The appellants
satisfy the eligibility stipulation and the respondents committed serious
illegality in declining her admission. Respondents are directed to grant
admission to the appellants in Diploma Course in Education.
(364-G, H 365-A, B, C, DJ
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4468 of
2002.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.10.2001 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 7585 of 2001.
G WITH
C.A. Nos. 4469, 4470 of 2002.
J. Dhankar, B.S. Mor, S.M. Hooda, S.R. Kalkal, Mahinder Singh Dahiya,
Naresh Kaushik, S.C. Gupta, Ms. Shilpa Chohan, Ms. Lalitha Kaushik, D~.
H Shushil Balwads, J.P. Dhanda, Ms. Raj Rani Dhanda, K.P. Singh, N.K. Roy,
KUSUMLATA v. STATE [Y.K. SABHARWAL, J.] 361
Rajesh Singh and Devashish Bharuka for the appearing parties. A
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Y.K. SABHARWAL, J. Leave granted.
The question to be determined in these matters is regarding the eligibility B
of the appellant for seeking admission to the Diploma Course in Education
in order of her merit. Does she satisfy the prescribed conditions or not? The
answer would depend upon the interpretation of the clause prescribing
eligibility condition. The appellant passed the Senior School Certificate
Examination from the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE). The
educational qualification for admission to the Diploma in Education (D.Ed) C
in the State of Haryana is as follows:
"A candidate should have passed 10+2 Examination from Board of
School Education Haryana or its equivalent examination from any
other Board, recognized by Board of School Education, Haryana with
at least 50% aggregate marks." D
The appellant applied for the D.Ed course. The details of marks obtained
in 10+2 Examination were furnished by the appellant in the application form
and the respondents issued her admission card to appear in the written entrance
test. She qualified the said test. Against the total number of 3200 seats, her
rank was l 460th. After the declaration of the result of the written entrance E
test the appellant appeared for interview. The appellant was told that she was
not eligible to appear in the written entrance test having not secured 50%
aggregate marks in 10+2 examination of CBSE. According to the appellant
she had secured 50% aggregate marks which was required to be seen from
five subjects as the sixth subject was optional as an additional subject, not F
necessary to be taken or passed for the purpose of qualifying I 0+2
Examination. The appellant also showed to the respondents a letter dated
20th March, 2001 issued by CBSE stating that to qualify the 10+2 Examination
a student is required to have requisite marks in five subjects and the sixth was
an optional subject.
G
The denial of admission to the appellant resulted in her filing a writ
petition before the High Court. The High Court has held that there is no error
in the actions of the respondents in declining admission to the appellant as
she did not satisfy the minimum prescribed percentage under the eligibility
condition. The writ petition has been dismissed by the High Court. The
judgment of the High Court is under challenge in this appeal. H
362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A It is a common ground that if marks in all the six subjects for which
the appellant had appeared are taken into consideration she will not be eligible
as her aggregate in that event would be less than 50%. On the other hand,
if marks of five subjects are considered, her aggregate marks would be more
than 50% and she will satisfy the prescribed condition of securing at least
B 50% aggregate marks in 10+2 Examination and she would be eligible.
There can be no doubt that the terms and conditions for admission to
such courses are binding and have to be strictly adhered to. The question,
however, is what is the intent, purpose and true seirit of the clause providing
for securing at least 50% aggregate marks in 10+2 Examination so as to be
C eligible for admission to D.Ed course. The requirement is of securing at least
50% aggregate marks in 10+2 Examination either from Board of School
Education, Haryana or its equivalent examination from any other Board,
recognized by Board of School Education, Haryana. It is not in dispute that
the 10+2 examination conducted by CBSE is an equivalent examination
recognized by the Board of School Education, Haryana. It is clear and cannot
D be disputed that as per the regulations of CBSE to qualify 10+2 examination,
a candidate is required to obtain prescribed marks in five subjects and not
six. The sixth subject is treated as additional and optional. It is up to a
candidate to take or not the sixth subject. The relevant clauses in this regard
read as under:
E "3(a) To pass the examination, a candidate must obtain at least
Grade D-2 in all subjects of internal assessment unless the
candidate is exempted and 33% marks or Grade D-2 in each
of the five subjects of external examination as per scheme of
studies.
F (b) The additional subject offered by the candidate is not taken
into account for passing the examination."
As per the scheme of examination of CBSE the marks obtained in the
additional subjects are not taken into consideration in the passing of the
G examination. The additional subject is optional. A candidate may take it or
not. The requirement is that a candidate should obtain 33% marks or Grade
D-2 in each of the five subjects of external examination as per the scheme
of the studies. When the eligibility clause stipulates that a candidate should
have passed 10+2 examination with at least 50% aggregate marks, it is implicit
that the aggregate marks are required to be calculated keeping in view only
H the subjects which are necessary to pass 10+2 examination and not the marks
KUSUMLATA v. STATE [Y.K. SABHARWAL, J.] 363
of the additional subject which is not taken into account for passing the A
examination. This is the only reasonable interpretation having regard to the
spirit of the clause providing for eligibility conditions. The relevant factor is
to see what is necessary to pass 10+2 examination conducted by CBSE and
on that basis decide whether a candidate fulfils or not the requirement of the
eligibility clause. If seen from this perspective, the aggregate marks would B
have to be worked out having regard to the marks obtained in five subjects
and not in the additional subject which is not taken into account for passing
the examination.
The admission card for appearing in written test was issued to the
appellant who had furnished with her application the details of the marks C
secured by her in I 0+2 examination, she qualified that test. Further, the
scheme for the examinations conducted by the Board of Secondary Education,
Haryana also shows that even in Haryana total of five subjects is taken and
the sixth is treated as additional subject. The only difference is in the proforma
in which the certificate in relation to examination is issued by Haryana and
CBSE. By way of illustration we reproduce herein the proforma of the D
certificate issued by the Board of School Education, Haryana.
DETAILS OF MARKS
Subject Subject Marks Maximum Minimum
Code Obtained Marks Pass Marks E
502 HINDI CORE 046 JOO 033
501 ENGLISH CORE 063 JOO 033
900 COMMERCE 047 JOO 33 F
903 ACCOUNTANCY 046 JOO 33
576 ECONOMICS 058 JOO 33
TOTAL 260 500
G
ADDITIONAL XXXXXXX JOO 33
SUBJECT
Total Marks obtained (in words) TWO HUNDRED SIXTY ONLY
MORAL EDUCATION THR PRT 036 045 081/100 H
364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. I S.C.R.
A SUPW GRADE EXCELLENT
(Details of Grading given on back)
Note: t Marks in additional subject and Moral education are not
included in the total .
B 2. Indicates that the candidate has obtained distinction in the subjects.
BHIWANI
It would be seen from the above that the aggregate of five subjects is
taken. The marks statement issued by CBSE to the appellant is as follows:
c
CODE SUBJECt TH PR TOTAL TOTAL IN POSITION
WORDS GRADE
002 Hindi Elec. xx xx 50 Fifty five B2
D 027 History xx xx 45 Forty five Cl
028 Political Sc xx xx 39 Thirty nine Dt
048 Physical Edu. 21 35 56 Fifty six D2
E 064 Home Sc. 41 27 68 Sixty eight B2
301 English Core xx xx 33 Thirty three D2
500 Work A2
Experience
F
502 Phy.and A2
Health Edu.
503 General Studies Bl
G The only difference in the marks-sheet issued by the CBSE is that it
does not show total after five subjects and in fact no total is shown. The
relevant consideration is not the manner of issue of the marks-sheet or the
different proforma which may be adopted by one Board or the other but to
go into real object behind the clause. As already stated, the object of the
clause prescribing the eligibility condition is that the qualifying examination
H shall be passed by a candidate with at least 50% marks. A candidate on
KUSUM LATA v. STATE [Y.K. SABHARWAL, J.] 365
securing requisite marks would pass without taking the sixth subject. There A
would have been no difficulty if the proforma of CBSE was similar to the
one adopted by Haryana. In that eventuality it would not have been possible
to decline admission to the appellant on the ground for her not satisfying
minimum prescribed percentage under the eligibility condition. This kind of
approach would be arbitrary and discriminatory. Thus, the interpretation placed B
by the High Court is hyper-technical and erroneous. We are unable to sustain
the said interpretation. The appellant satisfies the eligibility stipulation and
the respondents committed serious illegality in declining her admission to
D.Ed course.
For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment of the C
High Court and hold that the appellants satisfy the prescribed condition of
securing 50% aggregate marks and were thus eligible. Therefore, we direct
the respondents to grant admission to the appellants in diploma course in
education. The appeals are accordingly allowed. The parties are left to bear
their own costs.
D
S.K.S. Appeals allowed ..
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "admission eligibility"Sign in to search