Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 947 (PAT)

Jitendra Kumar v. Bihar School Examination Board

2007-05-15

J.N.BHATT, S.K.SINHA

body2007
Judgment 1. By this Letters Patent Appeal, the challenge is against, the judgment of the learned Single Judge, recorded, on 18.8.2006, in C.W.J.C. No. 2766 of 2006, whereby, the writ petition came to be dismissed. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 2. The short question which emerges for consideration and adjudication is as to whether the refusal of the relief by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the appellants- original writ petitioners for issuance of a writ commanding the respondents to declare the results of the petitioners who had appeared in the examination for Teachers Training through Bhagwan Budha Primary Teachers Training College for the Sessions 1986-88 and 1987-89 in the year 1991 pursuant to an order passed by this Court, is justified or not. 3. The petitioners got admission for teachers training from Bhagwan Budha Prathmik Sikshak Prasikhan Mahavidyalaya, Hanuman Nagar, Kankar Bagh, Patna. Some of the original writ petitioners, namely, petitioners 2 to 8 had completed the teachers training for the academic Sessions 1986-88, whereas, the original writ petitioners 1 and 9 had completed the teachers training for the academic sessions 1987-89. 4. The case of the original writ petitioners is that after, successfully, completed training they were given certificate by the Principal of the College. It is further alleged that the respondent Government had never issued any notification giving warning as to which of the institutions under the State of Bihar had been recognized and which of the institutions had not been recognized and, as such, the innocent petitioners became the victims of such a situation and, therefore, they had received training in an institution which was not recognized at the relevant point of time for the sessions 1986-88 and 1987-89. It is in this context the petitioners had sought a direction that their results should be published. 5. We have heard learned counsels appearing for the parties. We have examined the factual profile. We have, also, considered the relevant proposition of law and the text and tenor of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and we find that the view taken by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted. 6. 5. We have heard learned counsels appearing for the parties. We have examined the factual profile. We have, also, considered the relevant proposition of law and the text and tenor of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and we find that the view taken by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted. 6. It is the settled proposition of law that once a school or a college has not been accorded recognition by the competent authority, the persons or the students of the said institution cannot acquire any right, much less, constitutional right to get their results declared. Obviously, there would not be any remedy. The right would ripen only when the complete process of recognition is done. In this connection, apart from inordinate delay in seeking the relief, we are of the clear opinion that there is no legal right which can be protected under the shield of constitutional writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. There are a host of pronouncements on this point. However, we would like to refer the following four Division Bench decisions of this Court which directly cover the facts of the present case: (1) Arajkiya Khwaja Shahid Hussain Primary Teachers Training College vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.:AIR 2006 (Patna) 5 : 2005(4) PLJR 607 , (2) L.P.A. No. 515 of 2006* (Jamil Akhtar and Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), decided on 7.2.2007, (3) L.P.A. No. 158 of 2007 (Central Board of Secondary Education vs. Bharat Singh and Ors.), decided on 28.2.2007, (4) L.P.A. No. 193 of 2007 (Nibha Kumari & Ors. vs. The Central Board of Secondary Education and Ors.), decided on 15.3.2007. 8. In the result, this Letters Patent Appeal shall stand dismissed.