Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1070 (PAT)

Saurabh Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2004-10-05

NARAYAN ROY

body2004
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Initially, this writ application was filed for issuance of admit card to the petitioner enabling him to appear in Intermediate Examination for the Session 2002- 2004 from L.S. College, Muzaffarpur. 3. During the pendency of this writ application, now an amendment application has been filed for publication of the result of the petitioner of Intermediate Examination (Science- 2002-2004). 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had applied for his appearance in the Intermediate Examination from L.S. College, Muzaffarpur for the Session 2002-2004 and he had filled up the form etc. and examination fee was deposited in the college in question, which was forwarded to the Bihar Intermediate Education Council (hereinafter to be referred to as "Council"), but no admit card was issued to the petitioner. However, the petitioner was allowed to sit in the examination and after commencement of the examination results have been published for the session 2002-2004, but the result of the petitioner was not published. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner was allowed to appear in the Intermediate Examination and he had done fairly well in the same, his result could have been published by the Council, but, for the faults of the College and the Council, he should not suffer. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Council stating therein, inter alia, that the Council had not received the examination form of the petitioner till commencement of the examination, which would be apparent from annexures 4 series, and, thus, the Council did not issue the admit card to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the Council, therefore, submitted that the Council, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, is not accountable for non- issue of admit card to the petitioner and even if the petitioner, somehow or the other, appeared in the examination, the Council is not accountable for publication of his result. 6. In paragraph 12 of the writ application, it is stated that the father of the petitioner on inquiries from the college in question came to know that the examination form of the petitioner could not reach the Council. 6. In paragraph 12 of the writ application, it is stated that the father of the petitioner on inquiries from the college in question came to know that the examination form of the petitioner could not reach the Council. From the pleadings of the parties, it is admitted fact that no admit card was issued to the petitioner nor the examination form of the petitioner was received by the Council. 7. Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the college is the agency to conduct the examination as per the direction/instruction of the Council and since the petitioner was allowed to appear in the examination and a roll number was allotted to him, the Council was duty bound to publish his result. 8. It is true that the examination is conducted by the college as per the instruction of the Council and students are allowed to appear in the examination provided admit cards are issued to them. 9. In the case at hand, it appears that even admit card was not issued to the petitioner and the petitioner himself has admitted this fact in his writ application. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and for the reasons aforementioned, therefore, l do not find sufficient reasons to interfere in the matter. 11. In the result, this application is dismissed.