- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
C.B.S.E And Another v. P. Sunil Kumar And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) appealed against a common judgment dated 18 June 1997 of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court. By a series of interim orders, the High Court had:
- Allowed students enrolled in schools that were not affiliated to CBSE to sit for the Board’s Class X (Secondary School) and Class XII (Senior Secondary) examinations.
- Directed CBSE to issue examination certificates to those students, either unconditionally or subject to the outcome of pending proceedings.
- Ultimately removed the conditional endorsements on already-issued certificates and ordered CBSE to release fresh, unrestricted certificates within one week of the results.
CBSE challenged these directions through six civil appeals arising out of four writ appeals and two original petitions decided together by the High Court. Leave to appeal was granted, and the Supreme Court consolidated the matters.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether courts can permit students of institutions not affiliated to CBSE to appear in CBSE examinations by interim orders.
- Whether, after such unauthorised appearance, courts can compel CBSE to issue regular examination certificates to those students, contrary to the Board’s bye-laws restricting eligibility to students of affiliated schools.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant — Central Board of Secondary Education
- Under CBSE bye-laws, only “regular” students of affiliated schools may sit for the Board’s examinations; the impugned orders violate these rules.
- Supreme Court precedent consistently condemns judicial directions that regularise admissions or examinations of students from unauthorised or unaffiliated institutions.
- The High Court’s reliance on compassion or sympathy cannot override the statutory framework or Supreme Court authority.
Respondent — Students from Unaffiliated Institutions
- Students had already been permitted to sit for the examinations and had successfully passed; cancelling their results would cause irreparable injustice.
- They relied on Central Board of Secondary Education v. Nikhil Gulati (1998) 3 SCC 5, where the Supreme Court declined to disturb similar High Court directions at a belated stage.
- No allegation existed that students had misrepresented facts, and the Board would suffer no prejudice by honouring the certificates.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. State of A.P. (1986) 2 SCC 667 | Court cannot compel a university to act contrary to its statute and regulations; no regularisation of admissions made in violation of law. | Used to affirm that CBSE cannot be forced to issue certificates when bye-laws were breached. |
| State of T.N. v. St. Joseph Teachers’ Training Institute (1991) 3 SCC 87 | Permission for students of unrecognised institutions to sit public exams is impermissible. | Cited to show High Court erred in granting examination permission to unauthorised students. |
| State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale (1992) 4 SCC 435 | High Courts should not authorise appearance in exams or accommodation of students from unrecognised institutions. | Reinforced the principle that such judicial orders should be struck down. |
| Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kumar Bansal (1993) 4 SCC 401 | Courts should avoid “sympathy-driven” interim relief that usurps academic authority. | Quoted verbatim to criticise “loose, ill-conceived sympathy” in educational matters. |
| Central Board of Secondary Education v. Nikhil Gulati (1998) 3 SCC 5 | An aberrational case where relief was not disturbed due to advanced stage, but the Court cautioned it should not serve as precedent. | Relied on by students; distinguished by Supreme Court because CBSE had given no assurance of affiliation here. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court noted that the respondent schools were admittedly unaffiliated and that CBSE bye-laws limit examination eligibility to students of affiliated schools. Relying on a consistent line of authority—from A.P. Christians through Vikas Sahebrao Roundale—the Court held that:
- Judicial directions authorising participation in examinations contrary to statutory or regulatory requirements constitute a “subversion of law.”
- Sympathy for students, though understandable, cannot override the mandatory provisions of the CBSE bye-laws or undermine the rule of law.
- The earlier decision in Nikhil Gulati was distinguishable: in that case, students had an expectation fostered by CBSE, whereas in the present case no such representation of affiliation had ever been made.
Consequently, the High Court’s directions were held to be “wholly erroneous” and unsustainable.
Holding and Implications
Appeals Allowed; impugned judgment and interim orders of the Kerala High Court set aside; writ petitions dismissed; no order as to costs.
Immediate Effect: The certificates issued pursuant to the High Court’s directions lose their legal validity, and CBSE is no longer compelled to honour them.
Broader Implications: The decision reinforces the principle that courts cannot, even on compassionate grounds, compel educational bodies to disregard their governing statutes and regulations. It signals that future attempts to regularise unauthorised admissions or examinations through interim judicial orders are unlikely to be sustained.
G.B Pattanaik, J.— Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.
2. These six appeals filed by the Central Board of Secondary Education are directed against the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dated 18-6-1997 disposing of Writ Appeals Nos. 949 and 978 of 1997, 285 and 300 of 1996 as well as the two original petitions filed before the Division Bench, namely, OPs Nos. 2400 and 3559 of 1996. The question that arises for consideration is: Whether students studying in institutions not affiliated to the Board of Secondary Education can be permitted by the High Court by an interim order to appear at the examination conducted by the Board and ultimately can the Board be compelled to issue certificates to those students who have appeared at the examination pursuant to the interim direction of the Court notwithstanding the fact that the institutions where the students were prosecuting their study have not yet received affiliation of the Central Board of Secondary Education? Writ Appeals Nos. 949 and 978 of 1997 had been preferred by the appellant-Board, against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 6-2-1997 by which order the Board was directed to allow the students of Sree Narayana Vidhya Bhavan, Chandrappinny, Thrissur to appear at the examination conducted by the Board. The learned Single Judge had indicated that the said order is being passed in the peculiar circumstances of the case without the matter being treated as a precedent. The learned Judge also further directed that the question of affiliation to Devi Academy Educational Society, Guruvayoor will be decided by the Board. Writ Appeal No. 285 of 1996 had also been preferred by the Board against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 7-2-1996 disposing of OP No. 1566 of 1996. In the said case on the basis of the order of the learned Single Judge, the students of the non-affiliated institutions were allowed to sit at the examination and further they were granted certificates on the basis of the result of the examination with the condition that the same will be subject to the result of the OP. Writ Appeal No. 300 of 1996 had also been preferred by the Board against the interim order of the learned Single Judge dated 31-1-1996 by which order the High Court had permitted the students to appear at the examination conducted by the Board and then further directed that the certificates granted should be attached to the condition that the same will be subject to the result of all the pending proceedings. The two original petitions have been preferred by 23 petitioners praying therein that the certificate that has been issued in their favour with the condition that it would be subject to the final decision of the pending proceedings should be modified and they should be granted fresh certificates. All these appeals and the original petitions were disposed of by the impugned judgment of the Kerala High Court, wherein the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court taking a sympathetic and compassionate view of the matter and being of the opinion that students who have been permitted to take admission and who have appeared in the examination should not be allowed to suffer and accordingly modified the conditions attached to the certificate and also directed that the students who have taken written examination for the 10th and 12th classes in the institution — Sree Narayana Vidhya Bhavan, Thrissur — should be granted certificates pursuant to the declaration of the result of the examination and result should be announced within one week and the certificates to be granted pursuant to the result should not impose any restriction as has been done in other cases. Similar directions were also issued in other writ appeals as well as the original petitions filed before the Division Bench.
3. There is no dispute that the institutions in which these students had pursued their studies have not yet received any affiliation from the Central Board of Secondary Education, who is the appellant in these appeals. Under the bye-laws of the Board, only regular students of affiliated schools with the Board are entitled to appear in the Secondary School Examination and the Senior Secondary School Examination conducted by the Board. Since the institutions in which the respondent-students have prosecuted their studies are admittedly not affiliated to the Board but the students have been allowed to appear at the examination pursuant to the interim direction of the Court, which is in contravention of the rules and regulations of the Board, the question that arises for consideration is: Whether the High Court was justified in issuing these impugned directions? This question no longer remains res integra. This Court in several cases deprecated the practice of allowing students to appear provisionally in the examinations of the Board or the University and then ultimately regularising the same by taking a sympathetic view of the matter. In the case of A.P Christians Medical Educational Society v. Govt. of A.P (1986) 2 SCC 667 this Court held that the Court will not be justified in issuing direction to the University to protect the interest of the students who had been admitted to the medical college in clear transgression of the provisions of the University Act and the regulations of the University. It was also observed that the Court cannot by its fiat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself as that would be destructive of the rule of law. In the case of the State of T.N v. St. Joseph Teachers' Training Institute (1991) 3 SCC 87, JT (1991) 2 SC 343 this Court held that the direction of admitting students of unauthorised educational institutions and permitting them to appear at the examination has been looked on with disfavour and the students of unrecognised institutions who are not legally entitled to appear at the examination conducted by the Education 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. All these cases were again considered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of the State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale (1992) 4 SCC 435 and it was held that the students of unrecognised and unauthorised educational institutions could not have been permitted by the High Court on a writ petition being filed to appear in examination and to be accommodated in recognised institutions. The Court ultimately struck down the direction issued by the High Court. In yet another case, Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kr. Bansal (1993) 4 SCC 401 another three-Judge Bench of this Court interfered with the interim order passed by the High Court to allow students to undergo internship course even without passing the MBBS examination. The Court observed:
“We are afraid that this kind of administration of interlocutory remedies, more guided by sympathy quite often wholly misplaced, does no 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 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. Decisions on matters relevant to be taken into account at the interlocutory stage cannot be deferred or decided later when serious complications might ensue from the interim order itself. In the present case, the High Court was apparently moved by sympathy for the candidates than by an accurate assessment of even the prima facie legal position. Such orders cannot be allowed to stand. The courts should not embarrass academic authorities by themselves taking over their functions.”
4. On the admitted position and in view of the law laid down by this Court referred to above, Mr Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellants, contended that the impugned direction of the High Court is wholly erroneous and cannot be sustained. The learned counsel appearing for the students in different appeals did not dispute the position that the schools from where their clients have perused their studies are not yet affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education. But they mainly contended that the students having been permitted to appear at the examination and they having been successful and certificates having been issued in their favour, it would work out great injustice, if the impugned directions of the High Court are set aside at this length of time. In support of this contention they placed reliance on a recent decision of this Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education v. Nikhil Gulati (1998) 3 SCC 5. In the aforesaid case, 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 but did not interfere with the ultimate direction of the High Court on the ground that fond hopes have been raised in the minds of the students and therefore it would be inappropriate to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution. We are unable to apply the reasoning given in the aforesaid case, inasmuch as there is no iota of material placed before us to indicate that the Central Board of Secondary Education, the appellants herein, either directly or indirectly had held out to the students at any point of time that the institutions in which they are prosecuting their studies have been affiliated or are going to be affiliated in the near future. We are conscious of the fact that our order setting aside the impugned directions of the High Court would cause injustice to these students. 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 by the High Court on misplaced sympathy in favour of the students. In view of the aforesaid premises, we set aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court as well as the interim orders issued by the Single Judge in several petitions out of which the writ appeals arose and the writ petitions filed by the respondents stand dismissed. These appeals are allowed but in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
Alert