ORAL ORDER Heard the parties. Through this writ application the petitioner seeks quashing the part of the final result of Class XI (Commerce) of petitioner as contained in the report book (Annexure 1) for academic year 2012-13 by which the petitioner has been detained in Class XI (Commerce) as well as for quashing the report of the concerned Committee dated 12.4.2013, as contained in Annexure 3, to the I.A. No. 4640 of 2013 so far it concerned with the petitioner. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has been detained in the Class on the allegation of use of unfair means though he has obtained 48.6 % marks and he is entitled to conditionally promoted subject to passing of compartmental exam as per the concerned C.B.S.E rules. Learned counsel has further submitted that the report of the alleged inquiry by a fact finding committee was not communicated to the petitioner till the date of filing of the writ application, however, the same has been brought on record along with the counter affidavit and, thus, the petitioner has challenged it subsequently. Allegations of harassment etc. have also been made. It is also contended that the petitioner has not been given similar treatment that has been given to other similarly situated students. It is also urged that even the representation filed by the father of the petitioner has not been considered by school administration. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents no. 1 stating that the respondent no. 1 has nothing to do with the any administrative or disciplinary affairs of the Board. The agreement with the Electricity Board and the D.A.V. Society is only for setting up a school in the colony without any financial support by the Board. Agreement is only to facilitate quality teaching and imparting of education to the wards of the Bihar State Power (Holding) Company) Ltd. employees and others. The Company has no right of any interference in the management of the school. 4. Counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3. Issue of maintainability of the writ application has been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the School. The Company has no right of any interference in the management of the school. 4. Counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3. Issue of maintainability of the writ application has been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the School. Learned counsel has submitted the school concerned, in view of the decision dated 24.6.2013 rendered by a Division Bench of this Court rendered in L.P.A. No. 1804/2012, the writ application would not be maintainable. 5. Per contra learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in both the decision, i.e., by a Single Bench of this Court as contained in Annexure H and aforesaid decision of the Division Bench as contained in Annexure I, it would appear that the writ application was held not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the fact that the issue in question was not related with performing any public duty by the school concerned as that was the matter of transfer of a teacher from DAV school to another DAV School. The Division Bench has held that the matter of transfer cannot be in discharge of public duty of an educational institution since the dispute raised by appellant is necessarily a private dispute. For that purpose the school was not found to be any constitutional body, and, thus, it has been held that the power of judicial review conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked in such matters. However, it is urged that the present case relates to performance of public duty by the school since it is a matter of imparting education and the lis is between the school administration and a student of the school. Learned counsel submits that since school is imparting education, it is performing public duty and as such would be amenable to the writ jurisdiction. He places reliance upon a decision of a Single bench of this Court rendered in Master Vedant Dhari Sinha Vs. The State of Bihar & ors. [ 2007(3) PLJR 379 ]. It is submitted that issue in that case again was denial of promotion of student of Class XI to XII because of his failure to appear in annual examinations. He places reliance upon a decision of a Single bench of this Court rendered in Master Vedant Dhari Sinha Vs. The State of Bihar & ors. [ 2007(3) PLJR 379 ]. It is submitted that issue in that case again was denial of promotion of student of Class XI to XII because of his failure to appear in annual examinations. The learned Single Judge has held that the school in question being engaged in imparting education from primary level to senior secondary level and affiliated with C.B.S.E., would be bound by the Examination Bye-laws of C.B.S.E. discharging public duty and, therefore, any administrative action taken by it would be amenable to the writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid decision was challenged by filing L.P.A. No. 515/2007. However, a Division Bench of this Court in its decision rendered in The Principal, D.A.V. Public School B.S.E.B. Colony, New Punaichak vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. [ 2007(3) PLJR 808 ] has upheld the order passed by the Single Bench and has further held that Bihar State Electricity Board is having some control over the school in question, therefore, the school would be amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. In view of the fact that the Division Bench of this Court has held that this particular institution, i.e., D.A.V. Public School, B.S.E.B. colony, New Punaichak would be amenable to writ jurisdiction under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court has proceeded to hear this matter on its merit also. 7. A detailed counter affidavit on the merit of the case has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3. It is stated that the petitioner was caught red handed using unfair means by invigilator on 23.3.2013. He was given warning that if he would again be caught in future using unfair means then stern action would be taken against him. However, the petitioner was again found using unfair means on 26.2.2013 and the matter was referred to a Three Man Committee on the report of invigilator. The chits/slips were compared with the copy of the petitioner and some contents were found matching from the answer-sheets of the petitioner. The petitioner was also given opportunity to explain. However, the petitioner was again found using unfair means on 26.2.2013 and the matter was referred to a Three Man Committee on the report of invigilator. The chits/slips were compared with the copy of the petitioner and some contents were found matching from the answer-sheets of the petitioner. The petitioner was also given opportunity to explain. However, he accepted using unfair means twice vide Annexure E. It is submitted that the Three Man Committee had submitted its report, as contained in Annexure D, holding the petitioner guilty and imposing penalty that he would have to repeat Class XI in view of the directives of the central Board of Secondary Education as contained in Annexure G. Learned counsel drew attention of this Court towards the conduct prescribed in Category 2 and the penalty imposed in such condition. The provision is being quoted below for the sake of convenience. “CATEGORY 2 The candidate had copying material in his/her possession. He/she also used the same in answering one or more question (s). The Head Examiner or Examiner’s report testifies this position. The candidate admits/denies having used the copying material found in his/her possession OR a candidate reported to have communicated with another candidate or the Examiner directly or indirectly. Allegation admitted/denied by the candidate. Strong evidence of allegation available. PENALTY Current Examination cancelled. He/she may take the examination in full subjects in the next year i.e. 2014 examination.” 8. On the aforesaid issue, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that only some of the contents of the answer book has been found to tally with the concerned chit allegedly found in possession of the petitioner which is bound to happen in view of the fact that the answer concerned is written by a candidate after reading the books prescribed by the C.B.S.E. or the school. However, the aforesaid submission is very difficult to be accepted in view of the fact that the candidate and his father have admitted the use of unfair means as would appear from annexure E to the counter affidavit. A Single Judge Bench of this Court in a decision dated 9.10.2012, as contained in Annexure H, has observed that it would indeed be a sad day if the Courts were to impose its authority and subjective opinion over the school authority and subjective jurisdiction of the respondents to maintain academic atmosphere and discipline. A Single Judge Bench of this Court in a decision dated 9.10.2012, as contained in Annexure H, has observed that it would indeed be a sad day if the Courts were to impose its authority and subjective opinion over the school authority and subjective jurisdiction of the respondents to maintain academic atmosphere and discipline. A passage from decision of the Apex Court rendered in Director (Studies), Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Hotel Management, Nutrition & Catering Technology, v. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan [(2009) 1 SCC 59] has also been quoted in the aforesaid decision which is again being reproduced for better appreciation. “12……We are of the firm opinion that in academic matters there should be strict discipline and malpractices should be severely punished. If our county is to progress we must maintain high educational standards, and this is only possible if malpractices in examinations in educational institutions are curbed with an iron hand.” 9. Thus, in my considered opinion, there would be no reason for this Court to intervene in such matter by granting relief to the petitioner as it is well settled, as held by the Supreme Court in Director (Studies), Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Hotel Management, Nutrition & Catering Technology (supra), that in the academic matters, there should be strict discipline and malpractices should be severely punished. 10. Accordingly, this writ application stands dismissed.