The Supreme Court recently slammed a Bombay High Court order in which the court admitted a plea but declined to award interim relief, therefore making the case moot.
Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh debated whether admitting such a case and adding it to the arrears list would serve any purpose.
“In any matter, more so of this nature, there is no charity to be done by the Court by admitting the matter and making it infructuous and adding to the arrear list of the High Court. Either the writ was liable to be allowed or dismissed. After opining it was required to be dismissed, we see no point why it was admitted,” the Court said.
The court was considering a petition from two students who had been denied the opportunity to take an improvement exam.
In February 2020, the two students took their class 12 board test under the Maharashtra State Board. Passing Physics, Chemistry, and Biology needed a minimum cumulative score of 150.
One of the petitioners received a score of 149, while the other received a score of 141.
There was an improvement plan, according to which two chances would be given to rewrite the paper in the next exam and improve the result.
The first improvement exam was slated for November 2020, but because of the COVID-19 epidemic, the petitioners were unable to take it.
The next exam was supposed to take place in April 2021, but it was postponed until September 2021.
The petitioners subsequently filed a writ case with the High Court, which on September 2, 2021, issued an order declaring that if the petitioners take the exam in September 2021, it will be deemed their first improvement attempt.
After that, the petitioners took the exam, but they did not do well. As a result, they applied for a second chance at the exam, which is slated for March 2022.
Their applications for the second improvement exam, however, were denied, prompting them to file a new writ suit with the Bombay High Court.
On January 28, 2022, the High Court issued an order admitting the case. It did note, however, in its order that the petitioners had made two attempts and had been denied temporary relief.
The petitioners subsequently filed this appeal with the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court's admission of the case without providing any relief was futile because the tests are set for March.
Advocate A Karthik, acting for the petitioners, drew the Court's attention to paragraph 3 of the High Court's September 2021 order in the first writ petition, where the Board made and recorded a concession. As part of the concession, it was decided that the Board's examination, which will take place in the last week of September, will be deemed the petitioners' first attempt.
As a result, the lawyer argued that the petitioners' earlier attempt should be considered the first attempt.
The Supreme Court stated that the High Court is required to evaluate the merits of whether this preposition would apply in the facts of the case.
As a result, it struck down the High Court's previous order and remanded the case to the High Court for a decision on the issue.
“We are thus of the view that the appropriate course of action would be to set aside the impugned order to the extent it grants admission and says no stay with a direction that the matter be examined in the contours of the aforesaid controversy at the admission stage itself and a view taken on merits one way or the other,” the Court directed.