Patna High Court
Punam Kumari vs The Chairman, Bihar School Examination ... on 6 September, 2017
Author: Chakradhari Sharan Singh
Bench: Sharan Singh, Chakradhari Sharan Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14177 of 2015
=========================================
Punam Kumari, D/o Late Anjani Kumar Singh, W/o Sri Bainay
Kumar Singh, R/o Mohalla-High School Road, Old Ward No.13,
New Ward No. 19, P.S. Forbesganj, District-Purnea (Now Araria).
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna-
800017.
2. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna-
800017.
3. The Assistant Secretary (Purnia), Bihar School Examination
Board, Patna- 800017.
4. The Principal, Govt. Women Teacher Training College,
Forbisganj, Araria.
.... .... Respondent/s
=========================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Mukund, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, AC to GA-12
For the BSEB : Mr. Ajay Behari Sinha, Adv.
=========================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI
SHARAN SINGH
C.A.V. JUDGMENT & ORDER
Date: 06-09-2017
This application, under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, has been filed seeking quashing of an
Patna High Court CWJC No.14177 of 2015 dt. 06.09.2017
2/7
order, dated 04.04.2012, passed by the Secretary, Bihar
School Examination Board, Patna (hereinafter referred to as
the 'Board'), vide its letter, dated 05.05.2012, whereby, the
petitioner's result of Teacher's Training Examination, 1994,
for the Session 1989-91, has been cancelled. The petitioner
also seeks a direction to the Board to declare her result of the
said Teacher's Training Examination, held in the year 1994,
for the said Session 1989-1991, and to issue marks-sheet and
certificate of the petitioner of the said examination.
2. The petitioner had earlier approached this
Court by filing CWJC No. 3505 of 2012, seeking similar
direction for declaration of said result and issuance of marks-
sheet and certificate etc. The order, dated 04.04.2012,
quashing of which is being sought in the present application,
was available on records of CWJC No. 3505 of 2012, which is
apparent from the order, dated 12.04.2012, passed in that
case. Though, the Court by the said order, dated 12.04.2012,
held the order, dated 04.04.2012, to be bad, dismissed the
writ application on the ground of delay and laches on the part
of the petitioner in following terms:-
"x x x x x x x x x x x
That brings to the
fore the nature of relief to be
granted. On the previous
occasion the Board had been
taken an objection of delay.
Patna High Court CWJC No.14177 of 2015 dt. 06.09.2017
3/7
The Court had observed that
there can be no uniform
yardstick and it may depend
on the facts of each case. The
counter affidavit of the Board
adequately reflects that by
reason of the long passage of
years, it is finding it difficult
to collate documents and even
examine the grievance of the
petitioner.
The submission of
the petitioner that she is
going to be high and dry
without any relief, is basically
for her to answer in not
having been vigilant for the
protection of her educational
qualifications and career
prospect by approaching the
Court in time for relief.
x x x x x x x x x x x"
3. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred Letters
Patent Appeal, bearing LPA No. 1031 of 2012, against the
order, dated 12.04.2012, passed in CWJC No. 3505 of 2012.
The Division Bench of this court did not feel persuaded to take
a different view than what was taken in the order, dated
12.04.2012, and, accordingly, dismissed the said Letters Patent Appeal by passing the following order:-
"The writ petition Patna High Court CWJC No.14177 of 2015 dt. 06.09.2017 4/7 was dismissed primarily on the ground of laches.
We have heard
learned counsel for the
appellant at length. We are
unable to persuade ourselves
to take a different view of the
matter especially when there
are serious dispute with
regard to facts which cannot
be resolved by this court in
these proceedings. Had the
appellant vigilant, it might
have been possible to resolve
the dispute, but at this distant
point of time even the
respondents are unable to
produce the record as they are
almost 20 years old.
We are not inclined
to entertain this appeal.
Accordingly, it is dismissed."
4. The petitioner, thereafter, approached
Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal, which gave rise to SLP (C) No(s). 15736 of 2015. It appears that it was contended on behalf of the petitioner, before the Supreme Court, that even if the Board did not have the records, it was quite possible that the records were available with the concerned training college. The Supreme Court, without Patna High Court CWJC No.14177 of 2015 dt. 06.09.2017 5/7 making any observation on such stand taken on behalf of the petitioner, observed that the appropriate course of action shall be to approach the High Court in this behalf. The petitioner sought permission to withdraw the application with a liberty to approach the High Court. The said Special Leave Petition, accordingly, came to be dismissed as withdraw by the Supreme Court by order, dated 03.07.2015, passed in SLP (C) No(s). 15736 of 2015.
5. In view of the observation made by the Supreme Court, the present writ application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner.
6. I have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
7. Mr. Anil Kumar Mukund, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has vehemently argued that though there were enough materials on record in possession of the respondents, sufficient for publication of result of the petitioner, they are consciously concealing such documents and not disclosing them to the Court.
8. In view of the specific plea taken on behalf of the petitioner before the Supreme Court and the observation made by the Supreme Court in the order, dated 03.07.2015, I, vide order, dated 04.04.2017, had directed the Principal of concerned Government Women Teachers Training College, Patna High Court CWJC No.14177 of 2015 dt. 06.09.2017 6/7 Forbisganj, Araria, to file counter affidavit.
9. Dispute has been raised on the point of petitioner's admission by misrepresenting her marks-sheet, obtained in matriculation examination, which was the basis for her admission in the said Teacher's Training College. Referring to various materials available, it is the stand of the State-respondents that the petitioner at the time of her admission to the course, in question, had claimed to secure 637 marks in her matriculation examination, held in the year 1986, under Roll Code 4109 and Roll No. 074, whereas, the petitioner had, in fact, secured only 437 marks in the said matriculation examination. With 437 marks in her matriculation examination, the petitioner could not have been admitted in the said Government Women Teachers Training College, Forbisganj, Araria, and by playing an act of fraud, she had got herself admitted to the said course, State- respondents contend.
10. Mr. Anil Kumar Mukund, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has vehemently argued that the petitioner never represented her marks to be 637 in matriculation examination as claimed by the State- respondents. He contends that the petitioner had secured 437 marks in the matriculation examination, which was the basis for her admission to the course in question. Patna High Court CWJC No.14177 of 2015 dt. 06.09.2017 7/7
11. From the counter affidavit, it appears that the respondents have found a news item, dated 13.08.1994, published in the daily newspaper AAJ, that fake examinees had appeared in Government Women Teachers Training Colleges. In that light of the matter, at the relevant point of time, it was decided to verify the genuineness of the candidature of candidates, who had appeared for the admission from four colleges, including the present one. This Court cannot rule out a situation that the petitioner, for the said reason, did not approach the Court or any other forum for publication of result or issuance of marks-sheet immediately after the results were published.
12. Despite direction of the Court, the records, pertaining to result in question, could not be located by the respondents.
13. Considering the above facts and the conduct of the petitioner, the relief, sought for in the present writ application, cannot be granted.
14. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Praveen-II/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 26.07.2017 Uploading Date 06.09.2017 Transmission N/A Date