Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 770 (PAT)

Surendra Paswan v. State Of Bihar

2004-08-02

NARAYAN ROY

body2004
Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Chandra Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sanjay Singh, Standing Counsel No. IX for the Staterespondents and Dr. Ravi Ranjan, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 6 and 7. 2. During the pendency of this appli cation, an amendment application being I.A. No. 3445 of 2004 has been filed on behalf of similarly situated persons to array them as petitioners. The cause of the persons, who wanted to be arrayed as the petitioners, appears to be one and the same. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I.A. No. 3445 of 2004 is allowed and it will form part of the main writ application. 4. The petitioners have prayed for issuance of the direction upon the respondents particularly respondent - State Board of Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") and its Secretary to register them as persons with disabilities (hereinafter referred to as "PWDs") for the Sessions 2001-2002. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are disabled students of Government Polytechnic, Saharsa and they, 25 in number, were admitted in Government Polytechnic, Saharsa under Integrating Persons With Disabilities in the Mainstream of Technical and Vocational Education Scheme for the Sessions 2001-2002 though they had taken admission in March, 2003. It is further submitted that these students have completed their first year course of studies and their fees and forms were forwarded by the Principal of the Polytechnic to the Board but somehow or the other, the same are not being accepted and they are not being allowed to appear in the examination which is going to commence from today. 6. Mr. Chandra Shekhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, further submitted that genuineness of the students would be manifest from the letter written by the Principal of the Polytechnic to the Director of the Department of Science & Technology, Government of Bihar, Patna as contained in Annexure-6 and, therefore, contended that the respondents- authorities could have accepted fees and forms of these petitioners for their appearance in the Examination, 2004. 7. Mr. 7. Mr. Sanjay Singh, learned Standing Counsel No. IX appearing on behalf of the State-respondents with reference to the counter affidavit, submitted that the petitioners were admitted in the year, 2003 and, therefore, they cannot be treated to be the students of the Session 2001-2002 as at that time the intake capacity of the Polytechnic, as approved by the All India Council for Technical Education, was only 300 which subsequently has been enhanced to 325 for the Sessions 2002-2003 and in that view of the matter, the petitioners cannot be allowed to appear in the examination which is going to be held from today. 8. Mr. Chandra Shekhar, learned counsel now contends that there are several materials on record to show that the petitioners though were admitted in March, 2003 but Sessions was 2001-2002 and at that time intake capacity of the Polytechnic would be deemed to be 325 and since the students have already completed their course of studies, they should be allowed to appear in the ensung examination. 9. Disputed questions of facts are involved. However, the genuineness of the students is not doubted by the respondents and it is submitted by learned counsel for the State-respondents that these students may be allowed to appear in 2005 and not in this sessions. 10. The controversy involved in this case centres aroundas to whether the petitioners were admitted for the Sessions 2002-2003 onwards or for the Sessions 2001-2002. 11. From the materials on record, it appears that in Sessions 2001-2002, the intake capacity of the Polytechnic was only 300 which subsequently has been enhanced to 325 for the Sessions 2002-2003. 12. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, it would not be appropriate for this Court to issue any positive direction to the respondents-authorities. 13. 11. From the materials on record, it appears that in Sessions 2001-2002, the intake capacity of the Polytechnic was only 300 which subsequently has been enhanced to 325 for the Sessions 2002-2003. 12. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, it would not be appropriate for this Court to issue any positive direction to the respondents-authorities. 13. However, seeing the nature of the grievance of the writ petitioners, who are handicapped, I direct the Director, Department of Science & Technology, Government of Bihar, Patna to examine the relevant records pertaining to this case and pass necessary orders as to whether the petitioners, who were admitted towards disabled quota, have been treated to be the students of the Sessions 2001-2002 or for the Sessions 2002-2003 and in case the Director would be satisfied that the petitioners actually were admitted for the Sessions 2001-2002 and they have completed their studies irrespective of the intake capacity of the Polytechnic he will direct the authorities concerned to arrange for special examination of these petitioners and in case the Director comes to some other conclusion, it will be left open to him, to pass necessary orders in accordance with law. However, this exercise must be completed by the Director within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 14. With the aforesaid directions and observations, this application is disposed of.