Judgment 1. Heard both the parties. 2. In the year 1982, an Act was passed. In terms thereof, it became obligatory for any institution to be competent to sponsor students to appear in the Teachers Training Examination to be conducted by the respondent Board to have recognition of the State Government. The Act did not prescribe the criteria to be observed for the purpose of obtaining such recognition. Those were to be provided by making rules. The rules were made in 1987 for the first time. In the meantime, Bhagwan Budh Primary Teachers Education College, Bajrahia in the District of Siwan admitted students for the sessions 1983-1985, 1984-1986, 1985-1987 and 1986-1988 for imparting Teachers Training. The Institution also applied to the Government for recognition. While the recognition was not granted, nor the same was refused by the State Government, the students, who had been imparted training by the said Institution during the said four sessions were permitted to appear at the examination conducted by the respondent Board. However, because the institution was not recognised their results were not published. As a result, a writ petition was filed in this Court, which ultimately travelled to the Hon ble Supreme Court. The Hon ble Supreme Court dealt with the matter by its order dated 21st September, 1990 in Civil Appeal No. 4129 of 1989. By that time, recognition of the said Institution for the years 1987-1989 and 1988-1990 was rejected and in consequence thereof, the application for recognition for the four sessions 1983-1985, 1984-1986, 1985-1987 and 1986-1988 was also rejected. The Hon ble Supreme Court found that while rejecting the application for grant of recognition for the said four years 1983-1985, 1984-1986, 1985-1987 and 1987-1988 the Government did not apply its mind appropriately. The Hon ble Supreme Court, therefore, directed the Government to reconsider the matter of recognition for the said four sessions and thereupon to publish the results of the students, who had appeared. Subsequent thereto, recognition for those four years was not only granted, but recognition for the sessions 1987-1989 and 1988-1990 was also granted. Students in excess of 100 in number were sponsored by the College for appearing in the examination after concluding the training course for the Sessions 1987-1989 and 1988-1990. The Board accepted fees from each such students and permitted each one of them to appear at the examination. The learned counsel, Mr. Students in excess of 100 in number were sponsored by the College for appearing in the examination after concluding the training course for the Sessions 1987-1989 and 1988-1990. The Board accepted fees from each such students and permitted each one of them to appear at the examination. The learned counsel, Mr. J.R Shukla, appearing on behalf of the Board submitted that the Board permitted such students to appear in view of the mandate given by the District Education Officer. The Board has published the result of 100 students, but has refused to publish result of the remaining students on the ground that the State Government has prevented the Board from publishing results beyond 100 students. Mr. Shukla has brought on record particulars of 6 students out of 100 students, who have not yet approached the Board and obtained their results. Mr. Shukla has, however, clarified that no sooner they will approach the Board, the Board will handover their results provided they come with the required certificates. 3. The question is whether the Board should or should not publish the result of the remaining students, who had appeared at the said examination. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to a decision of the Government which suggests that up to 100 students could be enrolled for the sessions 1989-1991. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no direction of the Government either contained in the rules or in the regulations that a College could only enroll 100 students. Prior to the decision for the session 1989-1991, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there was also no such administrative decision. The learned counsel for the State has not been able to produce any decision of the Government, which imposed any restriction upon a College from enrolling more than 100 students before the session 1989-1991. Furthermore, as submitted by Mr,. Shukla appearing on behalf of the respondent Board that the respondent Board entertains sponsorship by a College provided such sponsorship is accepted and forwarded by the District Education Officer. The District Education Officer, an officer of the State, having had forwarded the application of all those students to appear at the examination without any reservation, the State cannot contend that they are not entitled to the result of their appearance. The District Education Officer, an officer of the State, having had forwarded the application of all those students to appear at the examination without any reservation, the State cannot contend that they are not entitled to the result of their appearance. It must be kept in mind that if a limitation had been imposed in the matter of the number of candidates to be sponsored by a College, the Officer discharging the duty of the Government to vet such sponsorship, was obliged to ensure compliance of such limitation and inasmuch as a responsible officer of the Government namely, the District Education Officer, made responsible by the State to vet such sponsorship, had sponsored all the candidates sponsored by the petitioner for the examination, it must be deemed that the rules and regulations of the examination either statutory or administrative as was then prevalent did not debar those students to appear in the examination. Any subsequent decision of the State applicable in relation to any subsequent session cannot be imposed upon the session which stands concluded by appearing in the examination. 4. In those circumstances, there is no just reason for non-publishing the results of these students and accordingly, the Board is directed to publish their results. It is made clear that in order to obtain their result, these students must personally approach the Board alongwith their original matriculation certificate. In the event, any of such students approach the Board with his/her matriculation certificate and an authority letter issued by the College, the Board is directed to forthwith handover the mark-sheet and certificate denoting his result to such candidate. 5. This disposes of the application.