Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 767 (PAT)

Gopal Kumar v. Bihar School Examination Board

2004-08-02

NARAYAN ROY

body2004
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. All these writ applications since have been filed for common cause, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this order. 3. Grievance of the writ petitioners is that though they had appeared as private students through different recognized schools and they were registered and admit cards were issued, their results are not being published. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had appeared in 2004 Matriculation Examination held by the Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) and their results were published through internet where they were shown successful but some how or the other their results are not being communicated to their respective schools. 5. In all these three cases, counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondent Board stating therein inter alia that though these petitioners were allowed to sit in the matriculation examination of 2004 certain irregularities were detected in the documents furnished by them and, therefore, they were doubted to be genuine students and accordingly, in exercise of power as envisaged under Regulation 19 of Chapter V of Boards Regulation, results of the petitioners have been cancelled and the same has been communicated to the respective schools through which they had appeared. 6. From the materials on record, it appears that the petitioners were registered with the Board in the year 2003 and their forms and fees etc. were accepted and thereafter admit cards were issued to them for their appearance in the matriculation examination to be held in the month of March, 2004. It further appears that the Board had issued admit cards to the petitioners treating them to be genuine students on the basis of the certification submitted by the District Education Officer, Patna. it is informed at the bar that except some of the petitioners, all have passed in the matriculation examination. It is pointed out by Mr. Shukla, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Board that petitioners Soni Kumari, Basanti Kumari and Khusboo Kumari in C.W.J.C. No. 6793 of 2004 have failed in the matriculation examination whereas rest have already passed. Likewise, in C.W.J.C. No. 8092 of 2004 petitioners Sumit Kumar, Vikas Kumar and Monika Kumari have failed and rest have passed in the examination. Shukla, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Board that petitioners Soni Kumari, Basanti Kumari and Khusboo Kumari in C.W.J.C. No. 6793 of 2004 have failed in the matriculation examination whereas rest have already passed. Likewise, in C.W.J.C. No. 8092 of 2004 petitioners Sumit Kumar, Vikas Kumar and Monika Kumari have failed and rest have passed in the examination. So far as C.W.J.C. No. 7919 of 2004 is concerned, it is informed that the sole petitioner Neha has already passed the examination. 7. It appears that all the petitioners were found to be genuine students by the Board and consequently thereof admit cards were issued to them pursuant to which they appeared in the matriculation examination and majority of them are said to be successful. In case any irregularity or discrepancy in the certificate etc. of the petitioners were there, the same could have been detected much prior to the issuance of admit cards and since admit cards were issued to the petitioners they must be held to be genuine and eligible students for their appearance in the matriculation examination. It is true that even after publication of result the respondent Board has jurisdiction to cancel the results but this power cannot be generalised in all cases. Genuineness of the petitioners since was not doubted before issuance of admit cards and since majority of petitioners have passed the matriculation examination, in my opinion, their results should not have been cancelled. 8. A citizen has right to prosecute his studies and on untenable grounds the same right cannot be denied to them. The petitioners had prosecuted their studies and they have passed the matriculation examination and now at the fag end, it would be quite unjust to cancel their results on some minor irregularities and discrepancies. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Board it appears that certain discrepancies were found in their testimonials but some how or the other, the respondent Board relied on the certification of the District Education Officer, Patna and treated them as genuine students and by issuing admit cards, allowed them to appear in the matriculation examination. 9. The cases at hand do not appear to be exceptional cases where extraordinary power could have been exercised by the Board by cancelling the results of the petitioners after going through all sorts of scrutiny as required in law. 10. 9. The cases at hand do not appear to be exceptional cases where extraordinary power could have been exercised by the Board by cancelling the results of the petitioners after going through all sorts of scrutiny as required in law. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, these applications are allowed and the orders passed by the respondent Board cancelling results of the petitioners who have passed in the examination are hereby set aside and the respondent Board is directed to communicate the results of the petitioners except the students who have failed as indicated above to their respective schools alongwith their computerised marksheets within a period of two weeks from today. 11. This order, however, will not be a precedence in future as these cases are being disposed of in their peculiar facts and circumstances.