Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 256 (PAT)

Ram Narayan Singh v. State Of Bihar

2002-02-21

R.N.PRASAD

body2002
Judgment 1. In both the writ petitions similar questions of law and fact are involved. They have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Petitioners in both the writ petitions are Incharge head masters of the school, namely, A.J. High School, Jogiya Kansh and High School Dhewahi respectively. They have come before this Court for issue of direction to the respondents to hand over the registration slips and examination forms and to accept examination forms of the students of their respective school. Both the schools are proprietary and recognised schools. In C.W.J.C. No. 1990/2002 registration fees and forms of 358 students were submitted before the Board which were accepted. In C.W.J.C. 1991/2002 registration fees and forms of 289 students were submitted which were accepted. Registrations of all the students of both the schools were made. Registration slips and examination forms were sent to the District Education Officer for handing over the same to the Head master of the schools. Petitioners approached the District Education Officer, Aurangabad but no registration slip and examination forms were given. The petitioners in such a situation have moved this Court for issue of direction as indicated above. 3. Counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of Bihar School Examination Board and its authorities in both the writ petitions. In the counter-affidavits stand has been taken that registration slips and examination forms were sent to the District Education Officer to hand over the same to the concerned Head Master after verification of genuineness of students but the Head masters of the Schools did not supply list of the genuine students of their respective school. The schools in question are proprietary school and as such as per rule in no case more than 120 students can be allowed registration/to appear in the examination. Rule has been annexed as Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit. 4. From the narration of facts and submission of learned counsel for the parties it is evident that registration fees and forms of the students were accepted by the Board in the month of June, 2001. The students were registered and registration slips and examination forms were sent to the District Education Officer with the direction to hand over the same to the Head Master after verifying genuineness of the students. The students were registered and registration slips and examination forms were sent to the District Education Officer with the direction to hand over the same to the Head Master after verifying genuineness of the students. The petitioners approached the District Education Officer for registration slips and examination forms but the same were not handed over to them. It would be pertinent to mention herein that inspection of both the schools was made to verify the genuineness of the students for registration and report was submitted accordingly. Inspection reports have been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petitions, wherefrom it appears that detailed inspection/enquiry with respect to number of teachers, admission of students, admission register, guard files, registration forms etc. was made and report was submitted that registration of the students on inspection was found to be genuine. In the counter-affidavit genuineness of the report has not been doubted. However, plea has been taken by the respondents that both the schools are proprietary schools and in no case more than 120 students can be registered/allowed to appear in the examination from proprietary school. In support of submission learned counsel for the Board drew my attention to Rule 3 which deals with establishment of school. Rule 3 (K) deals with grant of permission to establish the school and says that in case of proprietary school permission can be granted only when the number of students in the said school is not less than 160 and in case of girls school not less than 100 students. However, it says that in one section number of students must not be more than 60. The aforesaid provision deals with permission to establish proprietary school. It does not say with respect to admission of students in the proprietary school after grant of permission to establish. Therefore, submission of learned counsel for the Board appears to be without any substance. 5. The plea taken by the learned counsel for the Board that petitioner did not approach District Education Officer also appears to be unbelievable as the petitioner has approached the High Court for issue of direction for the said purpose. Therefore, submission of learned counsel for the Board appears to be without any substance. 5. The plea taken by the learned counsel for the Board that petitioner did not approach District Education Officer also appears to be unbelievable as the petitioner has approached the High Court for issue of direction for the said purpose. The plea in the counter-affidavit that petitioner did not produce the list of genuine students is also not fit to be accepted as both the schools were inspected for the purpose of ascertaining genuineness of the students for registration and it was reported vide Annexure-3 in both the writ petitions that registration fees and forms submitted were genuine. Thus it is evident from the material on record that genuineness of the students has already been verified by making a detailed inspection of the records. 6. Therefore, both the writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondents/ authority concerned to hand over registration slips and examination forms to the petitioners without any delay if they approach the authority concerned. In case the petitioners submit the examination forms the authority concerned/of the Board shall accept the forms and allow the students of the schools to appear in annual secondary school examination, 2002.