ORDER 1. In this writ application the two petitioners claiming to be the Headmaster of Prayag Yadav High School, Audhe, Nemdarganj, Sheikhpura and Aadarsh High School, Sohdi, Sheikhpura (hereinafter referred to as “Audhe School and Sohdi School” respectively) have prayed for the following relief: “(a) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent District Education Officer Sheikhpura to accept the fees and form of the student of belonging to Paryag Yadav High School, Audhey, Neemdarganj, Sheikhpura and Aadras High School Sohdi, Sheikhpura. (b) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to issue admit card to the respective students of the school and to allow them to appear in the examination and further direct to publish their result in time.” 2. Mr. Khurshid Alam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has submitted that Audhe School was established in the year 1983 and being a private and non-aided school when it has been affiliated under the Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) for the purposes of conducting examination and has also been allotted permanent Code No. 24505, it would be alike Sohdi School also a private school having permanent Code No. 24032 of the Board, its registered students would be entitled for acceptance of fees and forms of 808 students for Audhe School and 1093 students for Sohdi School as also for consequential issuance of admit cards for their appearance in Annual Secondary Examination going to be commenced w.e.f. 13.3.2013. According to Mr. Alam the test examination of the students for their being sent up for 2013 Annual Secondary Examination to be conducted by the Board was held in the two schools between 17th December to 24th December and the results of such test examination as required by the Board in its communiqué dated 14.12.2012were also submitted on 2.1.2013 in the office of the District Education Officer, Sheikhpura. 3. 3. He has in this regard explained that when despite submissions of the result of test examination of both the schools the registration cards of the students of both the schools was not issued by the Board, representations were filed by both the petitioners on behalf of their respective school on 25.1.2013 and only thereafter the Board had issued the registration for all the students of the school on 11.2.2013 with an instruction to fill up the examination forms by 16th February, 2013 but when duly filled up examination form of the students of both the schools were presented in the office of the District Education Officer, Sheikhpura on 16.2.2013 they were accepted by the D.E.O., Sheikhpura and this fact was also brought to the notice of the Secretary to the Board by the representations filed by both the petitioners on 16.2.2013 and 19.2.2013 respectively. Accordingly to Mr. Alam that for the requisite amount of examination fee of students of both the schools Bank draft was also prepared but even then the fees and forms were not being accepted as a result whereof the career of 808 regular students of Audhe School and 1093 regular students of Sohdi School has been put at stake. He has, accordingly, submitted that under such circumstances this Court should issue a direction for acceptance of fees and forms of the students of both the schools for secondary examination which is going to be held from 13.3.2013. 4. In support of his aforementioned submission he has also referred to the provision of the Regulations and according to him the requirement of written test examination for the students for being sent up is not necessary. In this regard he has relied on the provision of Bihar School Examination Board Regulation, 1964 as published in the Manual of Important Circulars and Orders on Secondary and Allied Education with Acts, Rules and Govt. decisions by Malhotra Brothers (Eighth Edition, 2011), wherein according to him under Chapter IV Clause 2 of Eligibility of candidates only requires attending a regular course of study in the topmost class of the school at least for one session preceding the examination in which such candidate has to appear and whose record of work and conduct are assessed to be satisfactory and who has been found fit for being sent up. The added emphasis of Mr. The added emphasis of Mr. Alam is that in the said Clause 2 of Chapter IV of 1964 Regulation as published in the aforesaid Manual of Malhotra Publication, there is no requirement of appearance or passing the written test examination, as has been sought to be canvassed by the respondent Board in its counter affidavit, this Court should allow the prayer of the petitioner by following the ratio laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rishabh Raushan & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. Reported in 2002(2) PLJR 759 . 5. Mr. Alam has also made an alternative submission that even if it be held that the appearance of the candidates of the school in the test examination for being sent up in order to fulfil the condition of eligibility for appearing in the Board Examination is necessary, since both the petitioners had submitted the result sheet of the test examination which was duly forwarded by the District Education Officer leading to issuance of registration of its students, the Board thereafter cannot withhold its permission for not allowing the students of the two schools from appearing in the final secondary examination going to commence with effect from 13.3.2013. In this regard he has referred to a judgment of this Court in the case of Ajit Kumar & anor. v. the State of Bihar & ors., reported in 2005(2) PLJR 252 . 6. On the other hand, Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the Board has submitted that the requirement of appearance in a test examination conducted by the school for a candidate to become eligible for sitting in the annual secondary examination of the Board is a condition precedent in terms of Article 2(a) of Chapter-IV of the Regulation and reports of the District Education Officer, Sheikhpura received in the office of the Board had created a grave doubt as with regard to the fulfillment of the statutory condition regarding eligibility of the students of the school of the two petitioners. He has also referred to the report of inspection of the District Magistrate, Sheikhpura issued to the District Education Officer, Sheikhpura as with regard to the rampant corrupt practice being adopted by the Headmaster/Management of the private high schools in Sheikhpura who were indulging in corrupt practices by getting a large number of students registered claiming to be their regular students for the purpose of appearance in the annual secondary examination, 2013. Mr. Kumar had also referred to the averments made in the counter affidavit to substantiate his submissions that 808 students of the school of the petitioner no.1 and 1093 students of the school of the petitioner no.2 were fulfilling the prescribed statutory requirement of having appeared in the test examination. 7. In fact in the counter affidavit the respondents have relied on Regulation 2(a) of Chapter IV of the Bihar School Examination Board Regulations, 1964 to impress upon this Court that appearance of a regular student in the written test examination was a condition precedent for appearance in the final examination of the Board. It has also been explained that the Board had already notified on 14.12.2012 by issuing its communiqué, as contained in Annexure “B”, informing and directing all the Headmaster of the School to submit the result of the test examination in the office of the District Education Officer by 3rd January, 2013 but the result of the test examination of the schools of these two petitioners were not submitted by them within the aforesaid prescribed period. In the counter affidavit it has also been explained that when the result of the test examination of these two schools was submitted in the Board by the District Education Officer, Sheikhpura by his letter dated 30.1.2013 the Board on the request of these two petitioners had issued the registration for their students on 11.2.2013 with a permission to fill up the forms with fees by 16th February, 2013 but at the same time finding that the students of the two schools were huge in number, an enquiry was also entrusted to the District Education Officer, Sheikhpura to get the enquiry conducted by a three-man Committee as envisaged in the Board’s circular/instruction dated 1.10.2012 and submit its report. 8. 8. From paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit it would also transpire that the office of the Board had also sent a letter on 28.2.2013 to D.E.O., Sheikhpura seeking an explanation as to why the fees and forms of the students of the two schools were not being accepted as was alleged by the two petitioners in their complaint addressed to the Secretary to the Board. The further stand of the Board in the counter affidavit is that the District Education Officer, Sheikhpura by his letter no. 185 dated 1.3.2012 in response to the aforesaid Board’s letter dated 28.2.2013 had informed that on 22.12.2012 when he had inspected the two schools in course of test examination he had found only 161 students appearing in the test examination in Audhe School and 368 students appearing in the test examination at High School, Sohdi and as such, it was not possible for him to forward the fees and forms of 808 students for Audhe School and 1093 students for Sohdi School who for this purpose had also referred to a communication of the District Magistrate, Sheikhpura contained in letter dated 7.2.2013 addressed to D.E.O., Sheikhura as with regard to the information relating to huge mal-practice being adopted in the office of the District Education Officer, Sheikhpura in respect of submitting the result of the test examination of even those students who were not found present in course of sudden inspection of the test examination. Reliance in the counter affidavit has also been placed on an order dated 26.2.2013 in respect of a similar school of Sheikhpura District itself, namely, the Managing Committee, High School Abagil, in the district of Sheikhpura, whose writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 2663/2013 for a similar relief was dismissed as withdrawn by the order dated 26.2.2013. 9. Reliance in the counter affidavit has also been placed on an order dated 26.2.2013 in respect of a similar school of Sheikhpura District itself, namely, the Managing Committee, High School Abagil, in the district of Sheikhpura, whose writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 2663/2013 for a similar relief was dismissed as withdrawn by the order dated 26.2.2013. 9. It has to be noted that after this writ application was filed on 25.2.2013, when a prayer by the learned counsel for the petitioner was made for its being heard on priority basis for considering the necessity of passing an interim order for acceptance of fees and forms of the students of schools of the two petitioners and consequential issuance of Admit Cards for their appearance in the 2013 annual secondary examination to be conducted by the Board with effect from 13.2.2013 subject to the final result of this case, learned counsel for the Board, however, had sought a days accommodation to file counter affidavit. After the said counter affidavit was served on the counsel for the petitioner on 6.3.2013, the case was heard on 7.3.2013 and this Court in view of the averments made in the counter affidavit of the Board had felt the necessity of looking into the original records. Such original records being four files of the Board were produced on 8.3.2013 when the counsels of both the parties were heard on merit and the judgment was reserved. 10. In the background of the aforementioned factual aspects the first and foremost question would be as to whether the regular students of a private school having the facility of sending its students for appearing in the Board’s examination can take a stand that it is not necessary for the candidates to appear in the test examination and that the regular students of such private school have to be allowed to appear in the Board Examination as per wishes, whims and fancy of the Headmaster of the School? In this regard the provisions of Bihar School Examination Board Regulations, 1964 becomes relevant, inasmuch as it is under these Regulations that the provisions have also been made laying down the conditions under which the students have to be admitted to Secondary School Examination of the Board. In this regard the provisions of Bihar School Examination Board Regulations, 1964 becomes relevant, inasmuch as it is under these Regulations that the provisions have also been made laying down the conditions under which the students have to be admitted to Secondary School Examination of the Board. Chapter IV of the aforementioned Regulation in this regard lays down under Article 1 the eligibility of the school and since there is no dispute as with regard to both the schools being eligible, inasmuch as both of them have been given the code number and in the counter affidavit also no plea has been raised as with regard to the two schools being ineligible in any respect, this Court will straightway come to Article 2 which lays down the eligibility of the candidates. Article 2 of 1964 Regulations as published in the Manual of Malhotra Brothers reads as follows: “2. Eligibility of candidates-Subject to conditions prescribed under these regulations, the following class of candidates shall be eligible to be sent up for the examinations of the Board: (a) The candidates who has attended a regular course of study in the topmost class in one or more high schools for at least one session immediately preceding the examination in which he intends to appear and whose record of work and conduct are assessed to be satisfactory and who has been found fit for being sent up. (b) The candidate who has failed at the examination of the Board or could not appear therein after having been sent up and has not joined any high school, on the production of a certificate of (i) good conduct and (ii) diligent and regular study from the Headmaster or from the Principal of the school last attended by him. (c) The candidate who has been duly registered by the Board under Article 22 of Chapter IV of this regulation.” 11. From reading of the aforementioned Article 2(a) it would be absolutely clear that the Board has to be satisfied that the candidate who intends to appear in the Board’s Examination has attended a regular course of study in the topmost class i.e. Class X for at least one session immediately preceding the examination in which they intends to appear. From reading of the aforementioned Article 2(a) it would be absolutely clear that the Board has to be satisfied that the candidate who intends to appear in the Board’s Examination has attended a regular course of study in the topmost class i.e. Class X for at least one session immediately preceding the examination in which they intends to appear. The second requirement of Article 2(a) is that such candidate who has attended the regular course of study for one year in Class X must have the assessment of his record of work and conduct as satisfactory and who is found fit for being sent up. At this stage it would be also important to note that in these Regulations as per the Board’s counter affidavit the State Government had made amendment in the year 2002 as would be evident from letter no. 713 of the Secretary, Secondary Education of the State Govt. of Bihar dated 19.11.2002 which for the sake of clarity and convenience is quoted hereinbelow: ^^i=kad 10@ok&73@2002 f’kŒ 713 fcgkj ljdkj lsdsUMªh] izkFkfed ,oa O;Ld f’k{kk foHkkxA izs”kd] Jh chŒ chŒ JhokLro] lfpo] ek/;fed f’k{kkA lsok es] v/;{k] fcgkj fo|ky; ijh{kk lfefr] iVukA iVuk] fnuakd 19-11-02 fo”k; & fcgkj fo|ky; ijh{kk lfefr fofu;ekoyh 1964 ds v/;k;&4 dh dafMdk&2 dh mi&dfaMdk&¼,½ es la’kksf/kr ij jkT; ljdkj ls vuqeksnu izkIr djus ds lac/k esA egk’k;] mi;qZDr fo”k;d vkids ia=kd izsŒ 223 fnukad 7-11-2002 ds izlax es lwfpr djuk gS fd vkids }kjk Hksts x, fofu;ekoyh es la’kks/ku ds izLrko dks ljdkj }kjk fuEuor~ vuqeksfnr dj fn;k x;k gS& "The candidate who has attended a regular course of study in the topmost class in one or more high schools for at least one session immediately preceding the Examination in which he intends to appear and whose record of work and conduct are assessed to be satisfactory and who has been found fit for being sent up, on the basis of a written test examination held at the concerned school." fo’oklHkktu gŒ@& 19-11-2002 ¼chŒ chŒ JhokLro½ lŒ foŒ ek/;fed f’k{kkA^^ (underlining for emphasis) 12. From reading of the aforementioned amendment it would be found that everything remaining the same, the only addition in the publication made by Malhotra Brothers in its Manual in Clause 2(a) vis-a-vis the Government letter dated 19.11.2002 approving the amendment in Regular 2(a) to the aforementioned underlined portion “on the basis of a written test examination held at the concerned school” was within the power of the Board and the amendment had been made in the prescribed manner after giving approval of the State Government. This Court, therefore, is not at all impressed with the submission of Mr. Alam that as the said expression “on the basis of a written test examination held at the concerned school” has not been published in the book of Manual by Malhotra Publication the same has to be altogether ignored. Contrary to it when the petitioners have not filed any affidavit denying correctness of the Government letter dated 19.11.2002 giving approval to the amendment in the Board’s Regulation 2(a) in Chapter IV, it has to be held that the candidate can only be found fit for being sent up on the basis of written test examination held in the school. 13. There is in fact a presumption of correctness of the official action and when the said modification/amendment in the Regulation 2(a) is taken into consideration with the remaining provision already existing therein it becomes absolutely clear that a regular student can appear in the Board Examination only after attending the entire session of Class X in one or more High School preceding examination in which he has to appear and whose record of work in that session as also his conduct during that period is assessed to be satisfactory. His being found fit for being sent up is not on the sweet-will of the school, rather for this purpose he has to also appear in the written test examination to be conducted in the school. Judged in this background the Board being the controlling authority for conducting the Secondary Examination will have all the reason to look into the aspect as to whether the candidature of the candidate which has been forwarded by the school for appearing in the final examination by way of his being sent up candidate has been found fit after completing his education in one session. Thus, even if the provision of written test examination prior to 2002 was not there no regular student of any school could have claimed for his automatic appearance in the final examination without satisfying the Board about his being found fit for being sent up and such fitness has to be decided in view of the amendment made in the year 2002 only on the basis of a written test examination held at the concerned school. This Court, therefore, would reject the submission of Mr. Alam that there is no requirement for a regular student to appear in the written test examination to be conducted in the school. In fact such student cannot be sent up by the school unless he has appeared in the test examination and has passed the same. That is how this Court would read the statutory requirement of appearance in a test examination as a condition precedent for being sent up for becoming eligible to appear in the Board’s Examination. 14. The petitioners in fact are otherwise stopped from taking this plea of there being no requirement to appear in the test examination in view of the fact that they themselves in paragraphs no. 7 and 8 have stated as follows: “7. That it is also not out to place herewith that before registration of the students all the students have to pass the test examination conducted by the school and the registration is issued subject to the result of the examination. The test examination of the students of Prayag Yadav High School and Adarsh High School Sohdi were conducted by the schools from 17th December to 24th December respectively. 8. That as per the rule every school has to submit the result of test examination before the Board through District Education Officer. Accordingly petitioners no. 1 and 2 submitted the result of test examination in the office of District Education Officer on 2.1.2013 which were sent to Board Office.” 15. In view of the aforementioned clear averments of the petitioners themselves they now cannot contend that there would be no requirement for regular students to appear in the test examination. Accordingly petitioners no. 1 and 2 submitted the result of test examination in the office of District Education Officer on 2.1.2013 which were sent to Board Office.” 15. In view of the aforementioned clear averments of the petitioners themselves they now cannot contend that there would be no requirement for regular students to appear in the test examination. The petitioners are claiming to be the Headmaster of the School and if they have understood the Regulation of the Board correctly, their counsel cannot wriggle out of the same by taking a contrary plea simply because he has been able to discover something in the publication of the Manual of Malhotra Brothers. The principle in law of estoppel by record is a well established principle and no one can be allowed to approbate and reprobate beyond the pleadings. 16. Having held so that the Board was fully justified in looking into the aspect as to whether 808 students in Audhe School and 1093 students in Sohdi School had appeared in such test examination, its decision to make an enquiry as with regard to genuineness of such number of students appearing in the schools can also not be questioned. It is in this regard that this Court from the records has found that the Board had already received a written complaint of as many as 27 persons alleging that Audhe School had become a pocket institution of the petitioner Shailendra Kumar who was in fact running his such school in his house at village Dani Bigha and was also indulging in corrupt practices by way of fake registration of students for their appearance in the Secondary Examination conducted by the Board. The Board’s file No. 65/12 would bear it out that on receipt of the said complaint on 19.12.2012, it had entrusted an enquiry to the District Education Officer, Sheikhpura vide its letter no. BP-1730 dated 4.1.2013 and had sought for a report. The said report, however, was not submitted by the District Education Officer, Sheikhpura till last day of January, 2013 and a reminder was also issued to him by the Deputy Secretary to the Board vide letter no. BP-1996 dated 31.1.2013 asking him to submit the report. It is true that a one line report was submitted by the District Education Officer, Sheikhpura vide his letter no. BP-1996 dated 31.1.2013 asking him to submit the report. It is true that a one line report was submitted by the District Education Officer, Sheikhpura vide his letter no. 85 dated 1.2.2103 stating that such complaint was filed on account of family dispute but then the report was definitely not in terms of the Board’s earlier decision contained in letter no. K458 dated 4.10.2012 laying down that the enquiry as with regard to the allegations of a private school was to be examined by a Committee of three persons, namely, the District Education Officer in capacity of the Convener, one Senior Officer in the rank of Deputy Collector to be authorized by the District Officer and the District Programme Officer (Secondary Education). Thus, the Board by its letter no. BP-2008 dated 5.2.2013 had again written to the District Education Officer that an enquiry should be conducted by the aforesaid three member Committee, inasmuch as 808 students were said to have been registered from Audhe School. 17. Similarly, as with regard to school of petitioner no.2 a complaint was received in the Board on 15.1.2013 which was filed by the six persons alleging that the Headmaster of Sohdi School had been charging Rs. 300-500 per students for registration of the students and had got around 1000 students registered for examination of this year which was the usual practice and the school of petitioner no.2, namely, Sohdi School was also getting the students registered and appeared in the examination beyond its capacity. On receipt of this complaint the District Education Officer, Sheikhpura was asked by the Board vide letter no. 1957 dated 21.1.2013 to submit his report and when the said report was not submitted even till 31st January, 2013 a reminder was also sent to the District Education Officer for sending the report. Though it appears that the District Education Officer vide his letter no. 86 dated 1.2.2013 had claimed to have held an enquiry by examining a few villagers but no conclusive opinion was given thereafter as a result whereof the Board had once again asked the District Education Officer, Sheikhpura vide letter no. 2008 dated 5.2.2013 to get such an enquiry conducted by a three-men Committee in terms of the Board’s earlier letter no. 458 dated 4.10.2012 (Annexure ‘D’ to the counter affidavit). 18. 2008 dated 5.2.2013 to get such an enquiry conducted by a three-men Committee in terms of the Board’s earlier letter no. 458 dated 4.10.2012 (Annexure ‘D’ to the counter affidavit). 18. It was in fact in reply to the aforementioned specific letter of the Board that the District Education Officer, Sheikhpura by his letter no. 104 dated 5.2.2013 had reported that since the three-man Committee was not constituted earlier in the district its report could not be submitted but in course of local inspection it was found that the number of students appearing in the test examination were far less than the number of registered students and when a show cause notice was asked from the petitioners and they had been asked to explain they had also given their show cause reply which was also being forwarded by him. From the show cause reply of the two petitioners dated 2.1.2013 regarding which there is no averment in the writ application, it would be clear that their common defence was that the test examination could not be held in one sitting primarily because of lack of basic infra-structure and huge strength of the students. To that extent since the explanation of both the petitioners in the date of 2.1.2013 is same in verbatim, the relevant part thereof is quoted hereinbelow: “(II) nloh d{kk dh tk¡p ijh{kk 17-12-2012 ls ‘kq: gksuk Fkk blds iwoZ fo|ky; dh vk/kkjHkwr lajpuk ,oa Nk=&Nk=kvks ds ukekadu dks ns[krs gq, izca/ku lfefr }kjk ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k Fkk fd Nk=&Nk=kvks ds ukaekdu ,oa iathd`r la[;k dks ns[krs gq, ,d ikyh es ijh{kk ysuk laHko ugh gSA D;ksfd buds nks dkj.k gS& izFke & ;g fd dMk+ds dh ‘khrygjh ,oa BaMdA nwljk & vk/kkjHkwr lajpuk dh dehA bu nksuks fcUnqvks ij xaHkhjrk ls fopkj djrs gq, tk¡p ijh{kk nks ikyh es ysus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;kA^^ 19. It is, however, very significant to note here that while petitioner no.1 had explained in his show cause reply filed on 2.1.2013 that the Headmaster of the school (petitioner no.1 himself) was absent from 15.12.2012 to 31.12.2012 on account of being advised bed rest by one Dr. It is, however, very significant to note here that while petitioner no.1 had explained in his show cause reply filed on 2.1.2013 that the Headmaster of the school (petitioner no.1 himself) was absent from 15.12.2012 to 31.12.2012 on account of being advised bed rest by one Dr. Deo Nandan Prasad, Sheikhpura, petitioner no.2 had explained absence of the Headmaster (petitioner no.2 himself) on account of his being busy in the office of the District Education Officer on 18.12.2012 for bringing the OMR form from the office of the District Education Officer, Sheikhpura and again busy on 20.12.2012 for preparation of Bank Challan for examination fee in the State Bank of India, Sheikhpura Branch. 20. Thus, the mystery of holding of the test examination and presence of far less students, 161 against 808 in Audhe School and 368 against 1093 students in Sohdi School would raise a serious question as to whether the result sheet submitted by the two schools directly in the office of the Board on 25.1.2013 was a mere faux-pass? From File No. 67/13 of the Board it is found that both petitioner no.1 and 2 on 25.1.2013 had submitted the result of the test examination of their schools in the office of the Board with a request for issuance of registration letters. As a matter of fact the District Education Officer, Sheikhpura had earlier sent the result of the test examination of 32 of 41 schools of Sheikhpura district vide his letter no. 16 dated 7.1.2013 excluding the schools of the two petitioners because at that point of time the District Education Officer, Sheikhpura did not find it appropriate to also send the doubtful result of the test examination of the school of the petitioners as he had received the aforesaid show cause reply of the petitioners dated 2.1.2013 and had reasons to believe that the number of students in the school of the petitioners were much more inflated than what was found by him personally in course of his personal inspection during the test examination on 22.12.2012 as is also apparent from his letter dated 1.3.2013. 21. Judged in this background merely because the Board on receipt of the subsequent communication of the District Education Officer, Sheikhpura vide his letter no. 21. Judged in this background merely because the Board on receipt of the subsequent communication of the District Education Officer, Sheikhpura vide his letter no. 76 dated 31.1.2013 had also allowed registration of the students of the petitioners school that in no way could curtail the power of the Board for examining the eligibility of the candidates under Article 2(a) of Chapter IV of 1964 Regulations already quoted above. As a matter of fact the District Education Officer, Sheikhpura was also directed to explain this aspect by Board’s letter no. As a matter of fact the District Education Officer, Sheikhpura was also directed to explain this aspect by Board’s letter no. 1246 dated 28.2.2013 and he by his letter dated 1.3.2013 had submitted the following report: ^^izs”kd] ftyk f’k{kk inkf/kdkjh] ‘ks[kiqjkA lsok es] lfpo] fcgkj] fo|ky; ijh{kk lfefr] iVukA ‘ks[kiqjk] fnukad 1-3-2013 fo”k; & LFkkiuk vuqefr izkIr fo|ky;ks ds ijh{kk vkosnu i= ds lac/k esA izalx & Hkonh; i=kad 1246] fnuakd 22-2-2013A egk’k;] mi;qZDr fo”k;d izlax es dguk gS fd 17-12-2012 ls 22-12-2012 rd 10oh dh tkap ijh{kk ds nkSjku mifLFkr Nk=ks dh la[;k fucaf/kr Nk=ks dh la[;k fucaf/kr Nk=ks dh la[;k ls dkQh de ik;h xbZA fujh{k.k ds dze es fdlh Hkh LFkkiuk vuqefr fo|ky; es ijh{kk ds nkSjku iz/kkuk/;kid vifLFkr ugh FksA rRlca/kh Li”Vhdj.k dh ek¡x lHkh fujhf{kr LFkkiuk vuqefr fo|ky;ks ls dh xbZ FkhA fnukad 22-12-2012 dh tk¡ap ijh{kk es ftyk inkf/kdkjh] ‘ks[kiqjk ds }kjk mPp fo|ky;] daFkoks RkFkk mPp fo|ky; vofxy dk fujh{k.k fd;k x;kA fujh{k.k es mDr fo|ky;ks es ek= 24&24 Nk= ik;s x;s FksA tcfd bu fo|ky;ks es fucaf/kr djk;s x;s Nk=ks dh la[;k dze’k% 650 rFkk 424 gS blh rjg esjs }kjk mPp fo|ky; lksgnh] QjijMhgk rFkk vkS/kks&usenkjxat dk fujh{k.k fd;k x;kA fujh{k.k es mifLFkr ijh{kkfFkZ;ks dh la[;k dze’k% 368] 198] 161 Fkh] tcfd fuacf/kr Nk=ks dh la[;k dze’k% 1093] 740 rFkk 808 gS ftyk inkf/kdkjh] egksn; }kjk Hkh tk¡p ijh{kk es lfEefyr Nk=ks dk gh QkeZ Hkjus dk funsZ’k izkIr gS ¼izfrfyfi layXu½ tks fu;ekdwy gS fo|ky;ks }kjk fyf[kr crk;k x;k fd BaM ds dkj.k dze Nk= mifLFkr Fks] rFkk nwljh ikyh esa Nk= mifLFkr gq,] Nk=ksa ds cSBus gsrq fo|ky; esa miLdj dk vHkko gSaA lk{; ds :i esa tkap ijh{kk esa lfEefyr Nk=ksa dk ewY;kafdr mRrj iqfLrdk fn[kkuk pkfg, Fkk] tks bu fo|ky;ksa }kjk ugha izLrqr fd;k x;kA tkWp ijh{kk esa mifLFkr Nk=ksa ds foijhr lHkh fucaf/kr Nk=ksa dk QkeZ Hkjus ds fy;s dk;kZy; ij ncko cuk;k tk jgk gSA fo|ky;ksa ls ckj&ckj vuqjks/k fd;k tk jgk gS fd tkWp ijh{kk esa ftrus Nk= ik;s x;s Fks mudk ijh{kk QkeZ Hkj fy;k tk;] tks fo|ky; iz/kku }kjk ugha fd;k tk jgk gSA** (underlining for emphasis) 22. It also transpires from the records that the Board’s enquiry being made in this regard by letter no. 2106 dated 6.3.2013 found in File No. 67/13 is still incomplete. It also transpires from the records that the Board’s enquiry being made in this regard by letter no. 2106 dated 6.3.2013 found in File No. 67/13 is still incomplete. The aforesaid letter of the Board dated 6.3.2013 being relevant for the purpose of this writ application is also quoted hereinbelow: i=kad BP 2016@13 fcgkj fo|ky; ijh{kk lfefr] iVuk izs"kd] lfpo fcgkj fo|ky; ijh{kk lfefr] iVuk&17 lsok esa] ftyk f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh] 'ks[kiqjkA iVuk] fnukad 06-03-2013 fo"k;& LFkkiuk vuqefr izkIr fo|ky;ksa ds tkap ijh{kkQy ds laca/k esaA egk'k;] mi;qZDr fo"k;d ds laca/k esa dguk gS fd vkids i=kad 16 fnukad 07-01-13 ds ek/;e ls dqy 41 esa ls 32 fo|ky;ksa dk tkap ijh{kkQy lfefr dk;kZy; dks izkIr djk;k x;k FkkA rnuqlkj lacaf/kr 32 fo|ky;ksa ds fo|kfFkZ;ksa dk iath;u jlhn fuxZr fd;k x;k FkkA iqu% vkids i=kad 76 fnukad 30-01-13 ds ek/;e ls fuEufyf[kr fo|ky;ksa dk tkap ijh{kk dk ijh{kkQy miyC/k djk;k x;kA dz0 la0 fo0 dksM fo|ky; dk uke ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa dh la[;k 1 24032 m0 fo0] lksgnh 1093 2 24501 m0 fo0] lqYrkuiqj 586 3 24502 m0 fo0] dSFkoka 643 4 24503 m0 fo0 QjijMhgk 737 5 24505 m0 fo0 vkS/kks usenkjxat 808 6 24506 m0 fo0 xxjh 753 7 24507 m0 fo0 lqHkkuiqj 654 mDr i= ds vkyksd esa vkids }kjk izfrfu;qDr fo'ks"k nwr Jh ?kus'oj egrks ds fnukad 31-01-13 dh mDr dze la0 2] 3] 4] 6] 7 ij vafdr fo|ky;ska dk mDr tkap ijh{kkQy ds la[;k vuqlkj lHkh dk iath;u jlhn izkIr djk fn;k x;k FkkA 'ks"k nks fo|ky;ksa dk iath;u jlhn i=kad 2045 fnukad 11-02-13 ds lkFk fnukad 11-02-13 dks vkids mDr fo'ks"k nwr dks izkIr djk;k tk pqdk gSa vkids i=kad 76 fnukad 30-01-13 dh Nk;k izfr fo|ky; lwph ds lkFk rFkk i=kad B.P. 2045 fnukad 11-02-13 dh Nk;k izfr layXu gSA bl dk;kZy; ds i=kad LFkk0 iz0 1246 fnukad 28-02-13 ds ek/;e ls dqy 07 fo|ky;ksa ds laca/k esa ijh{kk vkosnu i= izkIr ugha fd, tkus ds dkj.kksa ls voxr djkus gsrq vuqjks/k fd;k x;k Fkk ijUrq vkids }kjk mDr i= ds vkyksd esa ek= 04 fo|ky;ksa ds laca/k esa gh lwpuk miyC/k djkbZ xbZ gSA vr% 'ks"k fo|ky;ksa ds laca/k esa ijh{kk vkosnu i= ugha izkIr fd, tkus ds dkj.kksa ls vfoyCo voxr djk;k tk,] rkfd rnuqlkj ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dks oLrqfLFkfr ls voxr djk;k tk ldsA ;g Hkh lwpuk vko';d gS fd iwoZ esa vkids i=kad 76 fnuakd 30-01-13 ds lkFk tkap ijh{kk esa mRrhZ.k Nk=ksa dk tks ijh{kkQy lfefr dk;kZy; esa miyC/k djk;k x;k gS] mlls fHkUu fLFkfr vkids i=kad 185 fnukad 01-03-13 esa D;kasa crk;k tk jgk gSSA d`i;k bl ij mPpre izkFkfedrk fn;k tk,A fo'oklHkktu 6@3@13 lfpo fcgkj fo|ky; ijh{kk lfefr] iVukA 23. In such a situation when the petitioners did not follow the prescribed instructions given in the Board’s letter as with regard to submitting the result of test examination within the prescribed period through the District Education Officer they cannot make a complaint to this Court as with regard to the fate and future or career of the students being spoilt on account of the action of the Board. As noted above, initially the petitioners did not submit the result of the test examination in the office of the District Education Officer, Sheikhpura on or before 2.1.2013 when he had forwarded the result of 32 of 41 schools and later on when they having directly submitted the result in the office of the Board wanted to bypass the District Education Officer, Sheikhpura and when their such efforts did not succeed even in getting registration their belated appearance before the District Education Officer for forwarding their test result to the Board in no view of the matter can lead to any compassion for the students whose credential itself is in doubt. This Court in fact cannot imagine that in one school in Class X there would be one thousand students who are supposed to be taught in the whole of the academic session of Class X and for them this Court cannot extend helping hand by directing the Board to accept their fees and forms. 24. The credential and genuineness of these students who are claimed to be regular students of these schools, therefore, has to be determined by someone before they are allowed to appear in the Board Examination. This Court in keeping with the report contained in letter no. 24. The credential and genuineness of these students who are claimed to be regular students of these schools, therefore, has to be determined by someone before they are allowed to appear in the Board Examination. This Court in keeping with the report contained in letter no. 53 of the District Magistrate, Sheikhpura dated 7.2.2013 addressed to the District Education Officer, Sheikhpura, reading as follows: dk;kZy; ftyk inkf/kdkjh] 'ks[kiqjk ¼xksiuh; 'kk[kk½ i=kad 53 @xks0 izs"kd] ftyk inkf/kdkjh 'ks[kiqjkA lsok esa] ftyk f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh] 'ks[kiqjkA 'ks[kiqjk] fnukad 07@02@2013 fo"k;& eSVzhd ds izh&VsLV esa lfEefyr gq, fo|kfFkZ;ksa dks gh eq[; ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gksus dh vuqefr nsus ds laca/k esA egk'k;] mi;qZDr fo"k; ds laca/k esa funsf'kr djuk gS fd LFkkiuk vuqefr izkIr fo|ky;ksa ds tks fo|kFkhZ eSVzhd izh&VsLV esa lfEefyr gq, gS] flQZ mUgsa gh eq[; ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gksus gsrq QkWeZ Hkjus fn;k tk;A ,slh lwpuk fey jgh gS fd tks fo|kFkhZ eSVzhd izh&VsLV esa lfEefyr ugha gq, gS] mudh Hkh vad&lkj.kh vkids dk;kZy; esa izLrqr dj eq[; ijh{kk esa lfEefyr djkus dk iz;kl py jgk gS tks ,d xEHkhj ekeyk gSA vr% bl ij dBksj fuxjkuh j[kh tk; rFkk bl izdkj dk ekeyk izdk'k esas vkus ij nks"kh ds fo:n~/k vfoyEc dkuwjh dkjZokbZ dh tk,A bls vko';d le>sA fo'oklHkktu g0@& 7@2@13 ftyk inkf/kdkjh] 'ks[kiqjkA directing him to allow only such students of the schools having received permission of establishment for the Government to appear in the Board Examination who have appeared in the test examination would not exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by directing the Board to accept the fees and forms of the schools of the two petitioners unless the credential of these students are established in an enquiry. 25. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on a division judgment of this Court in the case of Rishabh Raushan (supra) is also wholly misplaced, inasmuch as not only in that case the result of the Secondary Examination, 2001 had been already published but when the same was cancelled in view of the un-amended provisions made in Regulation 2(a) as it was existing in the year 2001 the Division Bench in that case had held that there was no requirement in un-amended regulation. In fact the observations made by the Division Bench in the concluding portion of its judgment dated 1.5.2002 appears to be the forerunner for amendment in the Regulation of the Board as was notified on 19.11.2002 much after the judgment was delivered given by the Division Bench in the case of Rishabh Raushan (supra) on 1.5.2002. 26. The submission of Mr. Alam that once the Board had made the registration of the students of the school of the petitioners it had no other option but to allow such students to appear in the final examination by accepting their forms and fees has to be also noted for its being rejected. Article 22 of the Regulation providing for Registration lays down that:- “22. Registration of candidates.- (i) Subject to conditions prescribed under these regulations, the registration of all candidates including private candidates appearing at the Secondary School Examination shall be made by the Board. (ii) The registration fee will be Rs. 5 per student. (iii) Applications from regular candidates with requisite fee for registration duly forwarded by the Head of the Institution shall be received up to 31st March of the preceding year of the Board Examination. No application for registration shall be entertained after this date. (iv) A private candidate shall also send the application for registration with requisite fees through the Head of the Institution from which he intends to be sent up for the Board Examination latest by the 31st March. (v) A private candidate however can register himself up to 31st July of the preceding year on payment of late fine of Rs. 5 (Rupees five) only. (vi) Ex-students not registered earlier can get themselves registered till the last date for submission of fee and forms with late fine for that examination. (vii) Duplicate registration card will be issued to a candidate in case his/her card is lost, on payment of Rs. 2 as fee. (viii) Those schools which have not got their all or some of their students registered till 31st March, 1973 may get registered after submitting their registration fees and application forms along with Rs. 5 as late fine per candidates latest by 31st May, 1973. This concession is meant only for the year 1973. 2 as fee. (viii) Those schools which have not got their all or some of their students registered till 31st March, 1973 may get registered after submitting their registration fees and application forms along with Rs. 5 as late fine per candidates latest by 31st May, 1973. This concession is meant only for the year 1973. (ix) Such schools whose period of recognition has expired or whose recognition is under consideration or where there are students in class XI in anticipation of recognition will have to get their students registered in accordance with clauses (ii), (iii), (vi) and (viii). (x) Students who have migrated from other States and have got regular admission in class XI of any school of the State will have to get themselves registered within a month of their admission or in accordance with clause (iii).” (underlining for emphasis) 27. From the reading of the aforesaid provisions, it would become clear that an application for regular candidate with requisite fee for registration has to be duly forwarded by the Head of the Institution only up to 31st March of the preceding year of the Board examination and no application for registration has to be entertained after this date. In fact a reading of Article 22 with Article 14 and 17 would leave nothing for speculation that the acceptance of fees and forms for final examination is not automatic only because the student has been registered. The registration being the first step as per Article 22 in the beginning of the academic session and the requirement of eligibility under Regulation 2(a) of completing academic session with satisfactory record of work and conduct followed by his being found fit for being sent up after appearance in the test examination at the end of the academic session itself go to show that merely because a student had been registered by the Board he does not become entitled to appear in the Board Examination unless he becomes eligible in all respect under Article 2(a) of the Regulations. 28. 28. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of Ajit Kumar (supra) will also have no application to the facts of this case, inasmuch as it is found that in that case also results of private candidates who were already allowed to appear in the Board Examination was cancelled on the ground that they had not appeared in pre-test examination and this Court having regard to the fact that the students could not have been punished for the mistake attributable to the school/ Board had held that since the private students had already appearing in the Board Examination their results could not have been cancelled as there was no fault on their part specially when nothing was detected against them in course of main examination conducted by the Board. 29. Having thus held that mere registration of the students of the schools of the two petitioners would not make them eligible for appearing in the secondary examination of the Board, inasmuch as, they do not fulfill the statutory requirement under Article 2(a) of the Regulation, this Court is not at all impressed with the rest of the submissions of Mr. Khurshid Alam that the fate and future of the innocent students 808 of the school of the petitioner no.1 and 1093 of the school of the petitioner no.2 would be jeopardized and their one academic session will be lost. It is this aspect of the matter which has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Sunil Oraon Vs. C.B.S.E. reported in AIR 2007 SC 458 wherein it has been held as follows:- “22. Time and again, therefore, this Court had deprecated the practice of educational institution admitting the students without requisite recognition or affiliation. In all such cases the usual plea is the career of innocent children who have fallen in the hands of the mischievous designated school authorities. As the factual scenario delineated against goes to show the school has shown scant regards to the requirements for affiliation and as rightly highlighted by learned counsel for the CBSE, the infraction was of very serious nature. Though highlighted by learned counsel for the CBSE, the infraction was of very serious nature. Though the ultimate victims are innocent students that cannot be a ground for granting relief to the appellant. Even after filing the undertakings the school non-challantly continued the violations. 23. Though highlighted by learned counsel for the CBSE, the infraction was of very serious nature. Though the ultimate victims are innocent students that cannot be a ground for granting relief to the appellant. Even after filing the undertakings the school non-challantly continued the violations. 23. Students have suffered because of the objectionable conduct of the school. It shall be open to them to seek such remedy against School as is available in law, about which aspect we express no opinion.” 30. This Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 cannot direct the Board to act contrary to the provisions made in the Regulation and allow the students of the two petitioners to appear in the Board Examination even when they have not been found eligible by the Board in terms of its Article 2(a) of the Regulation. In a similar situation, the Apex Court in the case of A.R. Christians Medical Educational Society Vs. Govt. of A.P. reported in 1986(2) SCC 667 had held that:- “We cannot by our fiat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself. We cannot imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the court to disobey the laws.” 31. This Court is also not in a position to interfere with the decision of the Bihar School Examination Board of not accepting the fees and forms of the students of the schools of the petitioners because it has not found any clear violation of some statutory rules or legal principle. The strict purity in the examinations of educational institution has to be achieved at any cost and no sympathy or leniency can be shown to the students who are not eligible to appear in the Board Examination. The Apex Court in the case of Director (Studies) Vs. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan reported in AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 696 has held that the High Court should not ordinarily interfere with the orders passed in educational matter and this regard has referred to and relied on its earlier judgments in the cases of Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. Allahabad & Anr. Vs. Bagleshwar Prasad & Anr. reported in AIR 1966 SC 875 , Dr. J.P. Kulshrestha & Ors. Vs. Chancellor, Allahabad University & Ors. reported in AIR 1980 SC 2141 and Rajendra Prasad Mathur Vs. Vs. Bagleshwar Prasad & Anr. reported in AIR 1966 SC 875 , Dr. J.P. Kulshrestha & Ors. Vs. Chancellor, Allahabad University & Ors. reported in AIR 1980 SC 2141 and Rajendra Prasad Mathur Vs. Karnataka University & Anr. reported in AIR 1986 SC 1448 . 32. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court does not find that the petitioners have made out any case for issuance of a direction for acceptance of fees and forms of the 808 students of the petitioner no.1 and 1093 students of the school of the petitioner no.2. As noted above, the matter is still pending enquiry and, therefore, this Court would direct for constitution of Three Men Committee consisting of District Magistrate, Sheikhpura, Secretary to the Bihar School Examination Board and the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Munger to hold an enquiry with regard to the genuineness of the students of the school of both of the petitioners. The Committee shall examine the claim of the two petitioners of their 808 and 1093 students fulfilling the requirement under Article 2(a) of the Regulation by looking into all the relevant facts and circumstances including Admission Register, Attendance Register, Fees Payment Book/Register, Answer Book of the Test Examination and Result-sheet of the test examination. The Committee having examined all aspects of the matter would make its individual recommendation for each of the registered students of both the schools as to whether they are genuine students and whether they are eligible to appear in the Board Examination in terms of Article 2(a) of Chapter-4 of 1964 Regulation. 33. This exercise must be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and only those students who are found to be genuine students fulfilling the requirement of Article 2(a) of the Regulation will be allowed to appear in the Supplementary Secondary Examination of the year 2013 to be conducted by the Board. 34. Upon completion of such exercise if it is found that the petitioners had inflated the number of students and that the sponsoring or forwarding of the Examination forms of 808 regular students of the school of the petitioner no. 34. Upon completion of such exercise if it is found that the petitioners had inflated the number of students and that the sponsoring or forwarding of the Examination forms of 808 regular students of the school of the petitioner no. 1 and 1093 regular students of the school of petitioner no.2 was fake or fraudulent, the Board must make its recommendation to the competent authority of the State Government for withdrawing cancelling or suspending recognition or even the order of establishment of these two schools of the petitioners in exercise of its power under Article 1(iii) of Chapter-IV of the Regulations. 35. Before parting with this court would also direct that the time schedule given for registration for regular students of the eligible schools in Article 22 of Chapter-IV of the Regulations must be followed in letter and spirit and no registration of any students of such school for the secondary examination for the year 2014 onwards should be entertained after 31st March as envisaged in Article 22(iv) of the Regulations. Once this practice is rigorously followed by the Board the situation created in the present case largely on account of entertaining the applications for registration even a month before the annual examination giving prospect to dubious means for inflating the number of sent up students of the schools, would be automatically checked and the authorities Board as also the district officials would be in a position to verify the eligibility of the sent up candidates of such school in terms of Article 2(a) of the Regulations in an effective manner. The Board also must devise a transparent mechanism that in no case the examination fee or form is accepted later than thirty days of the commencement of the Annual Examination and fifteen days of the Supplementary Examination as prescribed under Article 14 of Chapter-IV of the Regulation. 36. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of.