JUDGMENT : Though the foundational facts of these two cases, filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, are different, since both the cases relate to seeking direction from this court to allow the petitioners to appear in the same D.El.Ed. (Diploma in Elementary Education) course, they have been heard together with the consent of the parties and are being disposed of by the present judgment and order. 2. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) in both the cases which are there on record. 3. I have heard Mr. Sarva Deo Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Gyan Shankar, learned counsel representing the Board in both these cases. 4. The sole petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 7069 of 2020 claims that he had pursued his D.El.Ed. course during the session 2014-2016 in S.M. Zaheer Alam Teachers Training College, which is a recognized institution to impart training in Education. He had participated in the final examination held by the Board in October 2018. On the allegation that the petitioner had indulged in unfair means, he was expelled from the examination and subsequently information was sent to the Principal of the College through letter dated 8th July 2019 that the current examination of the petitioner had been cancelled and that he had been debarred from appearing in the examination for one year/one examination. It is the petitioner’s case that in the light of the said communication dated 8th July 2019 the College wrote a letter to the Board for permitting him to appear in the examination of the said course which is being held in 2020. The Board has come out with a notice requiring submission of examination forms for the examination scheduled to be held in 2020. The last date for submission of examination form was originally fixed as 30th June 2020 which was extended up to 1st July 2020. With late fine, forms and fees for the said examination the last date had been fixed as 7th July 2020. The Board is said to have published the program for the examination also. It is however the petitioner’s case that the Board is not accepting fees and forms of such students who had failed in or were expelled from the previous examination. The Board is said to have published the program for the examination also. It is however the petitioner’s case that the Board is not accepting fees and forms of such students who had failed in or were expelled from the previous examination. It is in this background the petitioner is seeking a direction to the Board to accept his fee and form and allow him to appear for the forthcoming examination of D.El.Ed. course to be held by the Board. 5. There are two petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 7171 of 2020. They also claim to be the students of the same institution for the same academic session. They had appeared in the examination held by the Board in October 2018 in which they had failed. They had again appeared in the annual examination held in March 2019 but they failed again. They want to make third attempt by appearing in the annual examination to be held by the Board in 2020 which is not being permitted. In such circumstance they have approached this court for the same relief i.e. for direction to the respondent Board to allow them to appear in the examination. It is recorded at this stage itself, on the basis of submissions advanced on behalf of the parties that holding of the examination in question has been postponed by the Board. 6. It is the case of the Board as pleaded in the counter affidavit filed in C.W.J.C. No. 7069 of 2020 that the Diploma in Elementary Education course of training, which the petitioners were pursuing, continued up to the academic session 2017-2019. From the academic session 2018-2020 a newly evolved training course known as Diploma in Elementary Education (face to face) training program has commenced which is materially different course of training from the course which the petitioners had pursued for the academic session 2014-2016. It has further been stated, with reference to Appendix-2 Clause 2. 1 of National Council of Teachers Education Regulation 2014 (Herein after referred to as the 2014 Regulations), that D.El.Ed. courses is now of two years’ Duration but Trainee Students/Candidates may be permitted to complete the said course within a maximum period of three years. It has further been stated, with reference to Appendix-2 Clause 2. 1 of National Council of Teachers Education Regulation 2014 (Herein after referred to as the 2014 Regulations), that D.El.Ed. courses is now of two years’ Duration but Trainee Students/Candidates may be permitted to complete the said course within a maximum period of three years. According to the Board, it was in the light of a direction issued by The Education Department, Government of Bihar as contained in the letter dated 11 February 2019, in order to facilitate the willing candidates of D.El.Ed. training course examination pertaining to earlier academic sessions of 2014-16, 2015-16 and 2016-18, who either had failed or could not appear in their said D.El.Ed. training course examination conducted in the year 2018 that the Board had published a detailed schedule for filling up and submission of online examination forms and depositing the required fee and providing them a last chance to appear in an examination for the old course. It is the case of the Board, in respect of the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 7069 of 2020 that he did not make any effort to avail the opportunity to appear in the examination and has now approached this court with a plea that since a punishment against him was awarded vide letter dated th July 2019 by the Board, he could not appear in the examination though in fact the examination had already commenced from March 5, 2019, much before passing of the said order of debarment. 7. It is specific case of the Board that the petitioners were the students of D.El.Ed. course in the academic session 2014-16 (i.e. under the old course) which continued up to the academic session 2017-19 and from the academic session 2018-20 new D.El.Ed. course has been implemented which is completely at variance with the old course. It is accordingly the case of the Board that the plea of the petitioners to allow them to participate in the examination of D.El.Ed. course pursuant to the notice of examination in question is misconceived for the reason that the ensuing examination is for new D.El.Ed. course which the petitioners have not pursued and therefore their plea deserves to be rejected. 8. In an apparent attempt to meet the objection taken on behalf of the Board that the petitioners cannot be permitted to appear in the annual examination of new D.El.Ed. course which the petitioners have not pursued and therefore their plea deserves to be rejected. 8. In an apparent attempt to meet the objection taken on behalf of the Board that the petitioners cannot be permitted to appear in the annual examination of new D.El.Ed. course which they had not pursued, interlocutory applications have been filed in both the writ applications for amendment in the writ application by making an additional prayer in the nature of seeking direction from this court to the Board to hold special examination for the old D.El.Ed. course which they had completed during the academic session 2014-16. 9. It must be recorded at this stage that in an extraordinary situation of prevailing of COVID-19 pandemic these writ applications have been allowed to be filed online and considering urgency of the matter, as they related to examination, the matters have been heard through online video conferencing by this court. Keeping in mind all attending circumstances, I.A. no.1/2020 filed in C.W.J.C. No. 7069 of 2020 and I.A. no.1/2020 filed in C.W.J.C. No. 7171 of 2020 are allowed and accordingly the petitioners are permitted to press their additional relief as noted above. 10. The facts which have been taken note of in the foregoing paragraphs are not at all in dispute. This is not in dispute that the petitioners had pursued old D.El.Ed. course whereas new D.El.Ed. course commenced from the academic session 2018-20. The examination which is being held by the Board is admittedly for the academic session 2018-20. In the court’s opinion, therefore, the petitioners are ineligible to participate in the examination which is being held for new course. In this background a question has arisen as to whether a case is made out, in the facts and circumstances noted above, for this court to direct the Board to hold special examination for such students of old D.El.Ed. course who either failed in their previous attempts or, as is the case of the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 7069 of 2020, were expelled from the examination on the charge of adopting unfair means and subsequently debarred from appearing in the examination. course who either failed in their previous attempts or, as is the case of the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 7069 of 2020, were expelled from the examination on the charge of adopting unfair means and subsequently debarred from appearing in the examination. How far sustainable is the plea of the Board that the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 7069 of 2020 himself missed to avail the opportunity allowed to all candidates of the old course to appear in the annual examination held in March, 2019, as the order debarring him from subsequent examination was passed by the Board in July, 2019 and, therefore, he does not deserve any relief as sought in his application; is also one of the questions to be examined by this court. 11. Mr. Gyan Shankar, learned counsel representing the Board has harped much on clause 2.1 of Appendix-2 of the Regulations to emphasize that duration of D.El.Ed. course has been fixed as two academic years. The said clause according to him permits the students to complete the program within a maximum period of three years from the date of admission to the program. On the strength of the said provision it is his plea that the petitioners cannot be permitted to be given any opportunity to appear in annual examination after three years of their admission which they had taken in 2014, in view of the clear language that duration of the program is of three years. 12. I do not find much force in the aforesaid stand taken on behalf of the Board for two reasons. Firstly, should the said submission be accepted, it would mean that “completion of D.El.Ed. course/program” under 2014 regulations would include completion of the process of assessment/evaluation/examination by the affiliating body. It is the own case of the Board that the examination for the academic session 2014-16 was held in 2018 and subsequently, the students of the said academic session were allowed to appear in the examination held in 2019. In any view of the matter, in my opinion, on conjoint reading of clause 2.1 and clause 2.2 of Appendix-2 of the 2014 Regulations, completion of course, for the purpose of determining the duration of the course doesn’t include completion of examination process and only that ground, the relief as sought for cannot be denied. 13. Clause-2 of appendix-2 of 2014 regulations reads as under:-“2. 13. Clause-2 of appendix-2 of 2014 regulations reads as under:-“2. Duration and Working Days 2.1 Duration The D.El.Ed. program shall be of duration of two academic years. However, the students shall be permitted to complete the program within a maximum period of three years from the date of admission to the program. 2.2 Working Days (a) There shall be at least 200 working days each year exclusive of the period of examination and admission. (b) The institution shall work for a minimum of thirty six hours in a week (five or six days), during which physical presence in the institution of all the teachers and student teachers is necessary to ensure their availability for advice, guidance, dialogue and consultation as and when needed. (c) The minimum attendance of student-teachers shall be 80% for all coursework including practicum, and 90% for the school internship.” 14. It can be easily discerned on close reading that Clause 2.2 (a) prescribes that there shall be at least two hundred working days each year ‘exclusive of the period of examination’. Meaning thereby that the course shall be completed within two academic years, with each academic year having two hundred working days, which shall be exclusive of the period of examination. The period of examination has thus been excluded from the duration of the program, as is clearly deductible on conjoint reading of the Clause 2 of Appendix 2.1 and 2.2 (a) of the 2014 Regulations. It is further evident from Clause 2 of Appendix 2.1 that, if for any reason, a student fails to complete the program within the said period of two academic years; he can complete the program within a maximum period of three academic years. The process of examination cannot be included to determine the duration of program within the meaning of Clause 2 of Appendix 2 of the 2014 Regulations rather the same shall have to be excluded by operation of Clause 2.2 of Appendix 2 of 2014 Regulations. 15. For the aforesaid reason, I am of the definite opinion that on the ground that the petitioners failed to clear the examination within three years, they cannot denied the opportunity to appear for the examination. At the cost of repetition, it is noted that the Bihar School Examination Board itself, had not held examination within three years from the admission of students in the program. 16. At the cost of repetition, it is noted that the Bihar School Examination Board itself, had not held examination within three years from the admission of students in the program. 16. Coming now to the case of the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 7069 of 2020, as has been noted above, he had appeared in the examination held by the Board in October, 2018. Thereafter, on 8th July, 2019, the Board communicated to the school about the penalty imposed on the petitioner, on the charge of adoption of unfair means during the examination, to the effect that his examination of 2018, had been cancelled and that he had been debarred from appearing in the examination for one year/one examination. Apparently, thus, till 18th July, 2019, there was no communication by the Board, that the petitioner’s examination of 2018 had been cancelled by the Board. Before issuance of the said communication dated 8th July, 2019, the students of the old course, were given a last chance to appear in the examination, which was held in the month of March, 2019. But till March 2019, the petitioner’s examination of 2018 was not cancelled and decision to cancel his examination was taken much thereafter in July, 2019. In such circumstance, the plea that the petitioner should have availed the opportunity to appear in the examination, held in 2019, in my opinion, is not sustainable. This is more so for the reason that after having held the examination in March, 2019, the Board communicated its decision on 8th July, 2019 that the petitioner had been debarred from appearing in the examination for one year/one examination which leads to the sole inference that in addition to cancellation of his 2018 examination, he was debarred from appearing in the examination for one year/one examination. It would have created a situation of uncertainty, had the petitioner appeared in the examination held in March, 2019, in view of the subsequent decision of the Board communicated on 8th July, 2019 that for his misconduct proved in relation to 2018 examination, he had been debarred from appearing in subsequent examination for one year/one examination. Apparently, there was delay on the part of the Board, in communicating the decision regarding punishment, on the charge of the petitioner having been found adopting unfair means in 2018 examination. 17. Apparently, there was delay on the part of the Board, in communicating the decision regarding punishment, on the charge of the petitioner having been found adopting unfair means in 2018 examination. 17. It is also evident that petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 7069 of 2020 had only one opportunity to appear in the final examination, held in 2018. In such circumstance, denial to the petitioner another chance to appear in the final examination of will be unjust, in Court’s opinion. 18. The D.El.Ed. qualification makes a person eligible to be appointed as a teacher in a Primary School. A question had come to my mind that: should a person, who has been found indulging in unfair means in examination and has been punished for such misconduct by the examining body, be allowed to obtain such qualification and pursue a career in teaching in a Primary School and whether that alone could be a ground to deny the relief, which the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 7069 of 2020, is seeking, in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is a discretionary remedy? It is noted that the petitioner has not assailed the decision of the Board whereby he has been found guilty of adopting unfair means in the examination and has been punished for the same by the Board. 19. There is no statutory bar for a candidate, having been found guilty of such misconduct, to make another attempt and pursue his course and career. Negating the relief on this ground, which the petitioner is seeking, will amount to punishing the petitioner twice, for his one misconduct, in respect of which, he has already been punished by the Board, with the communication of the letter dated 8th July, 2019. An individual should have the scope of correcting himself and of choosing a career/profession of his choice unless specifically barred by law. Accordingly, C.W.J.C. No. 7096 of 2020 is allowed. 20. Consequently, the Board is directed to hold special examination for the petitioner of the D.EL.Ed. course, preferably within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 21. Coming now to the cases of the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 7171 of 2020, this is an admitted position that the Board had conducted special examination for the students of old course, by way of last opportunity to them. They had participated and, had failed. 21. Coming now to the cases of the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 7171 of 2020, this is an admitted position that the Board had conducted special examination for the students of old course, by way of last opportunity to them. They had participated and, had failed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any statutory provision nor has he established breach of any legal or constitutional right of the petitioners, which could have required the Court to issue direction to the Board, to allow them to appear in the special examination. 22. However, it will be open for the Board, to allow the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 7171 of 2020 also, to appear in the special examination, to be held by the Board, in compliance of the present order in respect of the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 7069 of 2020. 23. C.W.J.C. No. 7171 of 2020 is disposed of accordingly.