Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 794 (JHR)

Hira Nath Singh v. Bihar School Examination Board

2007-10-04

DABBIRU GANESHRAO PATNAIK, M.Y.EQBAL

body2007
JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Since these two appeals have arisen out of the common judgment and common questions of law are involved, they have been heard together and are disposed of by this order. 2. Two writ petitions being CWJC No. 2213 of 2000 and CWJC No. 1358 of 1999(R) were filed by the petitioners with a common prayer for publication of result of Primary Teachers Training Examination. The petitioners of CWJC No. 1358 of 1999(R) were regular students of S.P.G. Mission Primary Teachers Training College (Male), Ranchi. Their case was that they completed their study for the sessions 1991-93 and having been found eligible, were allowed to appear in the Primary Teachers Training Examination held in August, 1994 by the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the Board). The petitioners of CWJC No. 2213 of 2000 were also the regular students of S.P.G. Mission Primary Teachers Training College (Male), Ranchi who completed their studies for the sessions 1991-93 and 1992-94. They being eligible and suitable were also allowed to appear in the said examination held in August, 1994. Their grievance was that the respondents have not published their result, though the result of all other students was published. 3. The Board, in its counter affidavit filed in CWJC No. 2213 of 2000, stated that the College in question was allotted Roll Code 1107 for appearance of the students in the Primary Teachers Training Examination for the sessions 1991-93 and 1992-94. According to the Board, the examination held in August, 1994 in which the students for the Sessions 1989-91 to 1992-94 appeared. According to the Board, the Government of Bihar vide Memo No. 102 dated 13th June, 1998 circulated a communique published in the newspaper by the Department of Primary, Secondary and Mass Education in which the college in question was shown as derecognized institution, the recognition having withdrawn. 4. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment having noticed the fact that the College in question remained recognized till 15th April, 1993, held that there is not difficulty for the respondents-Board to publish result of those students, who completed their sessions prior to 15th April, 1993. 4. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment having noticed the fact that the College in question remained recognized till 15th April, 1993, held that there is not difficulty for the respondents-Board to publish result of those students, who completed their sessions prior to 15th April, 1993. However, the learned Single Judge took the view that the students who completed their sessions after 15th April, 1993 or those who have been admitted after 15th April, 1993, there is not justification to publish the result for the reason that they have been studying in a derecognized institution. The learned Single Judge, accordingly, directed the respondents to publish the result of the students who appeared in the aforesaid examination from the College in question having completed their studies for the sessions 1991-93. So far the students who completed their studies for the sessions 1992-94, no relief was granted. The writ petitions were, accordingly, disposed of. 5. The petitioners of CWJC No. 2213 of 2000 have filed LPA No. 527 of 2001 being aggrieved by that part of the judgment whereby the learned Single Judge did not grant any relief to those students-petitioners who completed their studies for the sessions 1992-94. On the other hand, the respondents-Board has filed LPA No. 534 of 2001 challenging that part of the judgment whereby the learned Single Judge directed to Board to publish the result of those students who completed their studies for the sessions 1991-93. 6. We have heard Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants-students and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-Board. 7. It is worth to notice here the order dated 8.10.2001 passed by a Division Bench while admitting these two appeals for hearing. For better appreciation, the order dated 8.10.2001 is quoted herein below: The main point for consideration is about the Government of Bihar having issued a press communique through a newspaper of 8th January, 1994, derecognizing certain institutions including S.P.G. Mission Teachers Training College (Male), Church Road, Ranchi. The press communique contains a list of 210 such institutions, the aforesaid institution being one of them. The S.P.G. Mission Teachers Training College in the aforesaid press communique has been shown to have been derecognized with effect from 15.4.1993, even though the press communique was issued on 8th January, 1994. The press communique contains a list of 210 such institutions, the aforesaid institution being one of them. The S.P.G. Mission Teachers Training College in the aforesaid press communique has been shown to have been derecognized with effect from 15.4.1993, even though the press communique was issued on 8th January, 1994. A reference has been made to a Supreme Court order, but neither any copy of the Supreme Court order has been produced before use nor have we been taken into confidence as to whether in such order, the Supreme Court had passed any direction for retrospective derecognition of the institutions. The point, therefore, which mainly arises for consideration, is whether an institution could be derecognized retrospectively or not? 2. The second point is that the students had taken admission in the years 1991 and 1992, both at points of time when the Institution admittedly was not derecognized. The course being of two years academic duration, the students, who had taken admission in the year 1991 had to study upto 1993 (the institution had not been derecognized till the end of their studies) and the students who had taken admission in the year 1992 had to study till the year 1994 (the press communique was published on 8th January, 1994; the second batch of students had already studied practically the major portion of their academic sessions). 3. The third issue that even after the issuance of the Press Communique, admit cards were issued to the students by the Board itself. 4. The aforesaid aspects of the waiter prima facie indicate that perhaps the issues and points involved are debatable and require consideration. Equities demand that the students he not allowed to suffer in the meanwhile. 5. Both the appeals are admitted. They shall be heard in the usual course. Paper books shall be filed in three months. 6. In the meanwhile, we direct the Board to declare the results of the students belonging to both batches, 1991-1993 and 1992-1994 and publish the same with all consequences. The declaration of the result and its publication, however, shall be subject to the result of these appeals. The results shall be declared, published and all consequences to follow within a period of one month from today. 8. Mrs. The declaration of the result and its publication, however, shall be subject to the result of these appeals. The results shall be declared, published and all consequences to follow within a period of one month from today. 8. Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the students-appellants, firstly submitted that admittedly when the students took admission in the college in question, the institution was duly recognized. It is also an admitted fact that the appellants-students were allowed Roll Code No. 1107 for appearing in the Primary Teachers Training Examination for the sessions 1991-93 and 1992-94 by the Board. It is submitted that the respondents-board for the first time came with a notification stating that the recognition of the college in question was withdrawn in 1993. 9. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-Board in LPA No. 534 of 2001, submitted that the order of the Government of Bihar dated 13.6.1998 was circulated in which it was mentioned that the communique was published by the order of the Department derecognizing the institution. According to the counsel, when the recognition of the institution was withdrawn, then the question of publication of result does not arise. 10. As noticed above, admittedly after the students took admission for the sessions 1991-93 and 1992-94, the College in question was duly recognized. Even assuming that press communique was issued on 8th January, 1994 derecognizing the institution with effect from 15th April, 1993, the students had taken admission in the year 1992, the time when the institution was duly recognized. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the students were rightly allowed to participate in the examination conducted by the respondents-Board. The learned Single Judge therefore, ought to have directed the Board to publish the result of those students also who had completed their studies for the sessions 1992-94. We are further of the view that the Division Bench while passing the interim order dated 8.10.2001 rightly took the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board is bound to publish the result of all the students appeared in the examination. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, LPA No. 534 of 2001 filed by the Bihar School Examination Board is dismissed. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, LPA No. 534 of 2001 filed by the Bihar School Examination Board is dismissed. LPA No. 527 of 2001 is allowed and it is held that the Board is bound to publish the result of all those students also who completed their studies for the sessions 1992-94. D.G.R. Patnaik, J. 12. I agree.