Holding

Interim orders permitting students of unaffiliated schools to sit for CBSE examinations are impermissible, and the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

The Cambridge School, an unaffiliated institution, repeatedly violated CBSE's Examination and Affiliation Bye‑Laws by admitting students without meeting required standards. Despite CBSE’s warnings and withdrawal of provisional affiliation, the school sought permission for its Class X and XII students to sit for the 2006 board examinations, filing a writ petition that was initially granted interim relief by the High Court. The petition was later dismissed, and the school appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court examined whether courts can issue interim orders directing CBSE to allow students of unaffiliated schools to appear for examinations and whether sympathy for the students overrides statutory requirements. Relying on earlier judgments, the Court held that such interim orders are detrimental to academic discipline and subversive of the law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, with the Court noting that aggrieved students may seek remedy against the school itself.

Issues considered

Can a court issue an interim order directing CBSE to allow students of an unaffiliated school to appear for board examinations?
Does lack of affiliation under CBSE Bye‑Laws disqualify students from sitting for the examinations?
Is sympathy for the students a sufficient ground to override statutory affiliation requirements?
Are interim orders permitting such participation permissible under the law?

Subjects

affiliationCBSEinterim orderunaffiliated schoolboard examinationsacademic disciplineeducation law

Judgment

MINOR SUNIL ORAON TR. GUARDIAN AND ORS. A
v.
C.B.S.E. AND ORS.

NOVEMBER 13, 2006

..,.
. [ARIJITPASAYAT ANDLOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.] B

Educational Institutions-Senior secondary school-Admission of
students without requisite recognition and affiliation by Eudcation Board-
Even after filing undertaking, the school continued the violations of C
Examination and Affiliation Bye Laws of the Board-Request of the school
to permit the students of Class X and XII in the Board Examination rejected
by the Board-Writ Petition by students seeking permission to appear in the
examinations-Dismissed-On appeal, held: In view of the conduct of the
School, the relief sought for by students not permissible-Since the students
were the ultimate sufferers because of the conduct of the school, it is open D.
to them to seek legal remedy against the School.

Interlocutory Order-Directing students of unrecognized schools to
appear in exaniinations held by Education Boards-Permissibility-Held:
Such orders are detrimental to education and its efficient management and
are aberrations an subversive to academic discipline-Hence not permissible. E
In 1994 the respondent No. 4-school was granted provisional affiliation
by CBSE Board for three years. Further it was provisionally accorded
upgradation upto plus 2 stage for three years and thereafter f~r further three
years subject to fulfilment of Examination Bye Laws and Affiliation Bye Laws.
On inspection by Inspection Committee constituted by CBSE, it was found F
that the school was not abiding by the Examination Bye Laws/Affiliation Bye
Laws; that the school had admitted students from other unauthorized schools
and sponsoring the students from unaffiliated schools through this school;
and that it was running three schools which were not affiliated with CBSE.
Notice was sent to the school for withdraw of the provisional affiliation. CBSE G
though permitted the students to appear in All India Secondary and All India
Sr. Secondary Certificate Examinations to be held in March 2003 and 2004,
but it forbid the school to run any Secondary/Senior Secondary Classes under
CBSE pattern. Instead of removal of the deficiencies, School filed merely

1125 H
1126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A appeal for sympathetic consideration. CBSE asked the School the to submit
status report of removal of deficiencies and that it was required to apply afresh
for provisional affiliation. School applied for fresh affiliation, but the
application was rejected as the conditions had not been fulfilled. School again
requested CBSE to allow students to appear in Class X and XII Board
B Examinations to be held in March 2005. The School also undertook not to
take admission in Class IX and XI without permission of the Board; that it
had not admitted any additional student in Class X and XII for 2005 Exam;
and that it would not approach the Board in future for examinations held after
2005. It was noted that there were no student in Class IX and XI for the
examinations to be held in 2006 and allowed the students to appear in 2005
C Examination provided no candidate was directly admitted in Class X and XII
in the School.

School again applied for affiliation indicating that there were not
students in Class IX and XI. CBSE informed that its request for affiliation
would be considered only upto Secondary level and warned to stop the
D functioning of the classes upto Senior Secondary without removing the
deficiencies.

School again requested to CBSE to permit 159 students in Class X and
121 students in Class XII for 2006 Examination. The request was turned down.
·-
E Appellants-students filed Writ Petition seeking permission to 159
students of Class X and 121 students of Class XII to appear in 2006
Examinations. High Court by interim order allowed the students to appear in
the Examinations. However, by final order the Writ Petition was dismissed.
Hence the present appeal.

F Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. Time and again this Court had deprecated the practice of
educational institution admitting the students without requisite recognition
or affiliation. In all such cases the usual plea is the career of innocent
children who have fallen in the hands of the mischievous designated school
G authorities. As the factual scenario delineated against goes to show the school
has shown scant regards to the requirements for affiliation and the infraction
was very serious nature. Though the ultimate victims are innocent students
that cannot be a ground for granting relief to the appellant. Even after filing
the undertakings the School non-challantly continued the violations.
H (ll35-F-Hl
~ MINOR SUNIL ORAON TR. GUARDIAN v. C.B.S.E. [PASA YAT, J.] 1127
1.2. Students have suffered because of the objectionable conduct of the A
school. It shall be open to them to seek such remedy against School as is
available in law. (1136-A)
2. Interim orders directing the students of unrecognized schools to
appear in examinations are detrimental to education and its efficient
management. As a matter of course, such iuterm orders should not be passed, B
~ as they are aberrations and it is, subversive of academic discipline.
(1133-E-FI
Regional Officer, CBSE v. Sheena Pethambaran, (2003) 7 SCC 719;
C.B.S.E. and Anr. v. P. Sunil Kumar and Ors., [1998) 5 SCC 377; Guru Nanak
Dev University v. Parminder Kr. Bansal, [1993) 4 SCC 401; A.R. Christians
Medical Educational Society v. Govt. ofA.P., [198612 SCC 667; State of Tamil
c
Nadu v. St. Joseph Teacher's Training Institute, (1991) 3 SCC 87; Central
Board of Secondary Education v. Nikhil Gulati, (1998) 3 SCC 5; Krishna
Priya Ganguly v. University of Lucknow, (1984) 1 SCC 307 and State of
Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale, (1992) 4 SCC 435, relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4908 of2006.
D

"'. From the Judgment and Order dated 3/5-7-2006 of High Court of Jharkhand
at Ranchi in L.P.A. No.276/2006.

Arun Jaitley, Ajit Kumar Sinha, G.R. Pandey, Ms. Rakhi Suman and
Mukesh Sinha for the Appellants.
E

Tara Chandra Sharma, Ms. Neelam Sharma and Rajeev Sharma for the
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. Leave granted.

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division
Bench of the Jharkhand High Court dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal
which was filed by the Cambridge School Parents Association and another G
questioning legality of the judgment and order dated 15.6.2006 passed by a
learned Single Judge in a Writ Petiticm. In the Writ Petition prayer was for
a direction to the respondent-Central Board of Secondary Education (in short
the 'CBSE') to allow the students to appear in the examination conducted by
CBSE and to publish their results. The Writ Petition related to 159 students
of Class X and 121 stµdents of class XII of the Cambridge School, Tatisilwai, H
1128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A Ranchi for appearing in the examination which was scheduled to be held on
1st March, 2006. Though initially learned Single Judge had permitted candidates
to appear pursuant to interim order dated 27.2.2006, subsequently the writ
petition was dismissed on the ground that the school was not affiliated to the
CBSE and, therefore, no direction sought for could be given. In the appeal
B filed under Clause 10 of Letters Patent, the view was endorsed.

In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellants submitted
that for no fault of theirs, the academic career of nearly 300 students is being
jeopardized. Non-affiliation for some particular years has been highlighted by
learned Single Judge and the Division Bench overlooking the facts that
C affiliation has been granted on 29.8.2006 for the academic session 2006-07
covering the period from 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2007.

In response, learned counsel appearing for CBSE and its functionaries
submitted that the present appellants were proforma respondents before the
High Court and the Cambridge School Parents Association purporting to be
D an unregistered Association of Parents of children studying in the said
institution was the appellant. Further one of the proforma respondents was
the appellant No. 2 before the High Court. It is pointed out that law is fairly
well settled that students of non-affiliated schools cannot claim any relief on
equitable ground. Any sympathy shown to the students of the unaffiliated
and/or non-recognised institutions would be mis-placed sympathy.
E
Certain facts which are undisputed need to be noted:

The respondent No. 4 the Cambridge School had applied for grant of
affiliation in September 1994 and was granted affiliation for a period of three
years i.e. with effect from 1.4.1994 to 31.3 .1997." The school applied for
F upgradation to plus 2 stage and the school was accorded upgradation up to
plus 2 stage for a period of three years from 1.4.1996 to 31.3.1999. The
affiliation of the school at Secondary/Sr. Secondary level was further extended
for a period of three years from 1.4.1999 to 31.3 .2002 and thereafter up to
31.3 .2005 subject to fulfilment of Examination Bye Laws and the Affiliation
G Bye Laws of CBSE. As per the Affiliation Bye-Laws of CBSE, the school
applying for affiliation has to fulfil certain essential conditions. The relevant
provisions relating to affiliation in the Bye Laws are as under:

(i) It is mandatory for a school affiliated to Board to follow the
Examination Bye-Laws of the Board in toto;
H
MINOR SUNIL ORAON TR. GUARDIAN v. C.B.S.E. [PASA YAT, J.] 1129

(ii) No affiliated school shall endeavor to present the candidates A
who are not on its roll nor shall it present the candidates of its
unaffiliated Branch/School to any of the Board's Examination.

(iii) If the Board has reasons to believe that an affiliated school is not
following the Sub-section I & 2 of this Section, the Board may
resort to penalties as prescribed hereunder. B
(iv) Every affiliated school shall present a list of number of students
and their particulars in respect of Classes IX, X, XI & XII at the
time of beginning of an academic session.

According to the respondent CBSE, the school in gross violation of
Affiliation Bye-Laws was admitting large number of students in the secondary C
and senior secondary classes without providing support in terms of
infrastructural facilities and also without adequate provision of qualified
teachers. There were 30 sections in the school in classes IX to XII whereas
there were only 40 sections from Nursery to Class VIII. It was also found
that the school had admitted students from other unauthorized schools and D
sponsoring the students of unaffiliated school through this school. Inspection
~·~ by the Inspection Committee constituted by CBSE was conducted and the
Inspection Committee found that the school was not abiding by the Examination
Bye Laws/Affiliation Bye Laws of the CBSE. It was further noticed that in
clear violation of the norms, the Cambridge School, Tatiswal, Ranchi which
was the only school affiliated with the CBSE was running three schools which E
were not affiliated with the CBSE, they are as follows:

I. Karola Nehru Vidya Mandir Tatisilwai, Ranchi,

2. Cambridge School, Kumartoli, Ranchi,

3. Cambridge School, Morhabodi, Ranchi. F
The Inspection Committee found that the said school was not in a position
to accommodate a large number of candidates as has been sponsored by it
for taking All India Secondary School Examination and All India Senior School
Certificate Examination to be held in the years 2002 and 2003. Other
deficiencies were also noticed. One of the major infraction was that the G
school failed to produce the original school records, namely acquaintance roll
of the teaching/non teaching staff working the school affiliated with the
CBSE, fee collection register and the class wise attendance register. A large
number of students had been sponsored for appearance, though the number
.of bonafide students was much less. Notice was sent to the school to show H
1130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A cause as to why necessary actions are not to be taken to withdraw provisional
affiliation granted. Considering the replies to various communications by
letter dated 27/28.2.2003 the school was informed as follows:

"However, taking into consideration the career of students and to
safeguard the academic future of present students studying under the
B CBSE pattern and are in the Classes IX, X, XI & XII, the Competent
Authority of the Board has agreed to permit all these students to
appear at the All India Secondary and All India Sr. Secondary Certificate
Examinations, scheduled to be held in March, 2003 and 2004. But the
school will not run any class under CBSE pattern specifically classes
IX, X, XI & XII w.e.f academic session 2003 and 2004 and in case of
c any violation in this regard the responsibility and consequences would
rest upon the school authorities and the Board shall not be
responsible."

CBSE was requested by the School to reconsider and review the decision
D regarding withdrawal of violation. In reply CBSE vide its letter dated 23. 7 .2003
advised the school not to run any Secondary/Senior Secondary classes under
CBSE pattern. ..,

A mercy appeal vide letter dated 19.1.2003 was submitted by the school
and request was made to safeguard the educational interest of the students.
E The school instead of removing the deficiencies communicated to them by
CBSE, requested for a sympathetic consideration by letter dated 16.3.2004.
Joint Secretary (Affiliation), CBSE informed the school to submit the status
report of removal of deficiencies as had been intimated to the school and it
was, therefore, required to apply afresh for provisional affiliation as per the
requirements of the Affiliation Bye Laws. The school applied for grant of
F fresh affiliation by application dated 31.5.2004. An Inspection Team was
appointed for inspection of the school. As the essential conditions had not
been fulfilled, the application was rejected by letter dated 7.10.2004. The
school was informed about the glaring irregularities committed. The President
of the school again requested CBSE to allow the students to appear in Class
G X and XII Board Examinations which was scheduled to be held in March,
2005. School reiterated its request and by letter dated 19.11.2004 made a
prayer for allowing students of Class X and XII to appear in 2005 Examination
though their application for composite affiliation had been rejected. Certain
undertakings were given in the said letter dated 19.11.2004 which, so far as
relevant, are as follows:
H
.-.,.. MINOR SUNIL ORAON TR. GUARDIAN v. C.B.S.E. [PASA YAT, J.] 1131

"(a) We have not taken admission in Class IX and XI and will not A
admit without the permission of the Board.

(b) We have not admitted any additional student in class X and
XII for 2005 Exam.

(c) I firmly promise not to approach the Board in future for B
examinations to be held after the students currently in Class X and
XII are kindly allowed to take their examinations in 2005 on humanitarian
grounds."

On the basis of the undertaking the Joint Secretary (Affiliation) CBSE
by letter dated 9 .12.2004 informed the school about the consideration of the C
request. It was noted that there were no students in classes IX and XI for
the examinations to be held in 2006 and only students of class X and XII were ·
allowed to appear at the All India Secondary and Senior Secondary Examination
to be held in March, 2005 provided no candidate was directly admitted in ·
class X and XII in the school.
D
The school again applied for affiliation on 22.3.2005 clearly indicating
that there was no student in class IX and XI.

By letter dated 28.6.2005 CBSE informed the School that its request shall
be considered up to Secondary level in the first instance. The school was
clearly warned to stop functioning of its classes upto senior secondary level, E
without remaining the deficiencies pointed out on several earlier occasions.
Vide letter dated 6.2.2006 the school requested CBSE to permit 159 students
in class X and 121 students in class XII to appear examination which was to
be held in March, 2006. The request was turned down.

It is essentially the stand of CBSE that the School is not an affiliated
F
one to the CBSE and students whose schools are not affiliated with the Board
cannot be allowed to sit in the Board's Examination as regular students.
!
Though by interim order dated 27.2.2006 the learned Single Judge directed
CBSE to allow the students of class X and XII of the school provisionally
appear at the Examination, the same was subject to the decision of the case. G
Subsequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed and as noted above the Letters
Patent Appeal was also dismissed. By filing Additional affidavit the petitioner
has stated that some of the students who have taken the Examination pursuant
to the interim order passed by the Board were in fact bona fide students. 32
students were studying from the lower schools and the l3 students were also H
~·
1132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A studying from lower classes but had failed earlier appeared in class XII
examination. Since these students are bona fide students even if it is held that
affiliation has not been granted for certain period, that cannot be taken as a
weapon to practically destroy the educational career of the students. The
appellants have enclosed a list of 159 students of class X and 121 students
of Class XII who were allowed to appear in the Secondary School and Senior
B Secondary Examination, 2006 in terms of the interim order passed. CBSE in
its affidavit had clarified that 728 students appeared in Class X Secondary
School Examination which was held in 2006 from the school. Names of only
16 students appear in the list of Class XII examination held in 2006. The
details in this regard are stated as follows:
c " .. further say that out of728 students appeared in Class X examination
(Secondary School Examination) held in March, 2004 from Cambridge
School, Tatisilwai, Ranchi names of following 16 students only appear
in the list of Class XII examination held in March, 2006 from this
School:
..
D Roll No. Name
March/July, 2004 ..-i

I. 5140574 Kushal Chopra
2. 5140578 Manoj Kumar
E 3. 5140616 Renu Kumari Karkusha
4. 5140621 Sweety Mahto
5. 5140624 Inu Pradhan
6. 5140658 Ashish Kumar Choudhary
F 7. 5140688 ManaIi
8. 5140733 Rohit Kumar
9. 5140803 Subhankar Prabhakar
10. 5140993 Shatabdi Gunjan
G 11. 5141007 Sanjay Kumar Srivastava
12. 5141051 Mohit Rajan
13. 5141065 Shailendra Chakram
14. 5141172 Ravi Kumar
H
f
..,.
MINOR SUNIL ORAON TR. GUARDIAN v. C.B.S.E. [PASA YAT,J.] 1133

15. 5141196 Deepika Rani A
16. 5141281 Pancham kumar Basant Jonko

I am stating hereunder the status of 121 students mentioned in
Annexure I annexed by the Petitioner with the Special Leave Petition:

SI. Nos. 6, 7, 14, 20 and 28, 36, 38, 44, 45,48, 49, 54, 56, 75, 78, 87, B
I 04, I 06, l 17, 119 have not appeared in Class X Examination conducted
by the Central Board of Secondary Education but have appeared from
other Board.

The Roll Nos. of Candidates at SI. No. 34, 79, 121 as stated in
Annexure I are wrong, hence, their status has not been given. C
SI. Nos. I, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16,17,18,19, 21, 24, 25, 26, 29i
30, 31, 32, 35, 39, 40,41, 42, 47, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 57, 58, 59, 6 I, 62, 65,69,
70, 74,80,82,83,84,85,86,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97, 102, 103,
105, 109, 110, 111, 112,113, 114, 115, 116, 118, 120havenotappeared
in Class X Examination of CBSE from Cambridge School, Tetisilwai, D
Ranchi.

I am enclosing herewith Annexure R-13 showing the details of the
students and schools from where they have passed Class X ·
examination."
E
Now, we would refer to the law settled by this Court in various Judgments
to the effect that interim orders of the nature passed in the present case are
detrimental to education and its efficient management. As a matter of course,
such interim orders should not be passed, as they are aberrations and it is
subversive of academic discipline.
F
In Regional Officer, CBSE v. Sheena Pethambaran, [2003] 7 SCC 719,
at page this Court has observed:

"6. This Court has on several occasions earner deprecated the practice
of permitting the students to pursue their studies and to appear in the G
examination under the interim orders passed in the petitions. In most
of such cases it is ultimately pleaded that since the course was over
or the result had been declared, the matter deserves to be considered
sympathetically. It results in very awkward and difficult situations.
Rules stare straight into the face of the plea of sympathy and
concessions, against the legal provisions ...." H
'('
1134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A In the case ofC.B.S.E. & Anr. v. P. Sunil Kumar& Ors., [1998] 5 SCC
377, the institutions whose students were permitted to undertake the
examination of the Central Board of Secondary Education were not entitled
to appear in the examination. They were, however, allowed to appear in the
examination under the interim orders granted by the High Court. In that
context the Supreme Court observed:
B
"4 ........ But to permit students of an unaffiliated institution to appear
at the examination conducted by the Board under orders of the Court
and then to compel the Board to issue certificates in favour of those
who have undertaken examination would tantamount to subversion of
law and this Court will not be justified to sustain the orders issued
c by the High Court on misplaced sympathy in favour of the students."

In the case of Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kr. Bansal
[1993] 4 SCC, 401 the Supreme Court observed that such interim order is
subversive of academic discipline. The relevant observations are as under:
D "We are afraid that this kind of administration of interlocutory remedies,
more guided by sympathy quite often wholly misplaced, does no 4:-
service to anyone. From the series of orders that keep coming before
us in academic matters, we find that loose, ill-conceived sympathy
masquerades as interlocutory justice exposing judicial discretion to
E the criticism of degenerating into private benevolence. This is
subversive of academic discipline, or whatever is left of it, leading to
serious impasse in academic life. Admissions cannot be ordered without
regard to the eligibility of the candidates ... The courts should not
embarrass academic authorities by themselves taking over their
functions."
F
Yet in another case i.e. in the case· of A.R Christians Medical
Educational Society v. Govt. of A.P. [1986] 2 SCC 667 this Court·held that:

"We cannot by our fiat direct the University to disobey the
statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the I-
G University itself. We cannot imagine anything more destructive of the
rule of law than a direction by the court to disobey the laws."
J
In the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. St. Joseph Teacher's Training
Institute, [1991] 3 SCC 87 this Court observed that the direction of admitting
the students of unauthorized educational institutions and permitting them to
H
f
MINOR SUNIL ORAON TR. GUARDIAN v. C.B.S.E. [PASA YAT, J.] 1135
appear at the examination has been looked on with disfavour and the students A
of unrecognised institutions who are not legally entitled to appear at the
examination conducted by the Educational Department of the Government
cannot be allowed to sit at the examination and the High Court committed an
error in granting permission to such students to appear at the public
examination.
B
In the case of Central Board of Secondary Education v. Nikhil Gulati,
(1998] 3 SCC 5, this Court deprecated the practice followed by the High Court
to issue direction and also observed that such aberrations should not be
treated as a precedent in future.

InKrishnaPriyaGangulyv. University of Lucknow, [1984] l SCC307, C
the Supreme Court observed:

"3 Whenever a writ petition is filed provisional admission should not
be given as a matter of course on the petition being admitted unless
the court is fully satisfied that the petitioner has a cast-iron case D
which is bound to succeed or the error is so gross or apparent that
no other conclusion is possible."

In State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale, (1992] 4 SCC 435,
it was held that the students of unrecognized and unauthorized educational
institutions could not have been permitted by the High Court on a writ E
Petition being filed to appear in the examination and to be accommodated in
recognized institutions. This Court observed:

"12. Slackening the standard and judicial fiat to control the mode of
education and examining system are detrimental to the efficient
management of the education." F
Time and again, therefore, this Court had deprecated the practice of
educational institution admitting the students without requisite recognition or
affiliation. In all such cases the usual plea is the career of innocent children
who have fallen in the hands of the mischievous designated school authorities.
As the factual scenario delineated against goes to sho'"'. the school has G
shown scant regards to the requirements for affiliation and as rightly
highlighted by learned counsel for the CBSE, the infraction was of very
serious nature. Though the ultimate victims are innocent students that
cannot be a ground for granting relief to the appellant. Everi after filing the
undertakings the School non-challantly continued the violations.
H
1136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A Students have suffered because of the objectionable conduct of the
school. It shall be open to them to seek such remedy against School as is
available in law, about which aspect we express no opinion.

The appeal is dismissed but without any order as to costs.

B K.KT. Appeal dismissed.