JUDGMENT : I.A. No. 4231 of 2020 Office has reported that this appeal is not time barred. 2. Accordingly, learned counsel for the appellant seeks leave to withdraw this Interlocutory Application. 3. In the result, this Interlocutory Application is permitted to be withdrawn. L.P.A. No. 240 of 2020 4. The instant appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 03.03.2020 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.3461 of 2014 whereby the writ petition has been dismissed on the ground of disputed questions of fact which are of complex nature and require leading evidence for their determination. 5. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition which require to be enumerated, read as under :- The petitioner passed Intermediate examination in the year 1994 from B.N. College, Daltonganj under Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna. He was a regular candidate of Intermediate Arts for the Session 1992-94 and as a regular candidate he applied for registration before the Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna, having Enlistment No.P-2475/92 and registration number was provided to the petitioner. He appeared in the annual examination of intermediate in Arts and the results of the Sessions 1992-94 were published sometime in the month of July 1994 but the results of those candidates who had opted Logic and Psychology were kept pending. The candidates whose results were kept pending raised their grievance before the concerned college i.e., B.N.College, Daltonganj. Thereafter, the answer sheets of the candidates, whose results were kept pending, were again tabulated in St. Xavier College, Ranchi and upon tabulation of answer sheets, marks were allotted to Logic and Psychology papers and accordingly, cross list and marks were sent to the college and regional office of Bihar Intermediate Education Council situated at Ranchi. After the petitioner passed the Intermediate examination, the concerned college has issued character certificate in favour of the petitioner. After passing the Intermediate examination, petitioner pursued further studies and passed Graduation examination and also Teachers Training Course from Ranchi University and Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University, Raipur respectively. In the year 2012, the petitioner also qualified the Teachers Eligibility Test conducted by the Jharkhand Academic Council and consequently applied for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in upgraded high school. Ravi Shankar Shukla University, Raipur respectively. In the year 2012, the petitioner also qualified the Teachers Eligibility Test conducted by the Jharkhand Academic Council and consequently applied for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in upgraded high school. After qualifying the Teachers Eligibility Test, the petitioner wanted to appear in the Graduate Trained Teacher examination for which marks sheet and original certificate of Intermediate were required because those educational testimonials were required to be furnished at the time of interview and as such petitioner made a representation through proper channel with a request to furnish the marksheet and original certificate of intermediate. It is the further case of the petitioner that as the petitioner is a bona fide candidate and has been declared successful pursuant to which he has pursued his further studies but the Intermediate Council has not issued markssheet and original certificate in favour of the petitioner which is highly illegal and arbitrary in nature. The writ petitioner, in the backdrop of the aforesaid grounds/facts, has filed writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3461 of 2014 praying therein for issuance of following directions :- “For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding upon the respondent particularly respondent no.1 to issue marks sheet and original certificate of intermediate of the petitioner which has been withheld since long without any rhyme and reason, causing serious injury and is detrimental to the interest of the petitioner in an ensuing vacancy of public employment.” The case of the writ petitioner was contested by the respondent Board by filing counter affidavit taking the plea that the petitioner has never appeared in the Logic and Psychology subjects and as such, the disputed questions of fact require adjudication by leading evidence and the writ petition may not be entertained. The learned Single Judge, considering the aforesaid facts and relying upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Joshi technologies international Inc. v. Union of India and Others [ (2015) 7 SCC 728 ], has dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 03.03.2020 which is the subject matter of the present intra-court appeal. 6. Mr. The learned Single Judge, considering the aforesaid facts and relying upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Joshi technologies international Inc. v. Union of India and Others [ (2015) 7 SCC 728 ], has dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 03.03.2020 which is the subject matter of the present intra-court appeal. 6. Mr. Dilip Kumar Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner/appellant, has assailed the impugned order on the ground that there is no disputed questions of fact since it is the admitted case as would appear from the Attendance Register that the writ petitioner had appeared in the examination of the subjects Logic and Psychology but without considering the aforesaid Attendance Register, the learned Single Judge has come to the conclusive finding about involvement of disputed questions of fact and on that ground the writ petition has been dismissed which cannot be said to be proper and sustainable in the eyes of law. He further submits that actually the respondents have not evaluated the papers of Logic and Psychology and for that a decision was taken by the Board to get it re-evaluated in another Centre i.e., St. Xavier’s College, Ranchi wherein the answer papers of the writ petitioner pertaining to the subjects Logic and Psychology, have been evaluated and tabulated which itself shows that the writ petitioner had appeared in both the subjects which have been evaluated in St. Xavier’s College, Ranchi and thereafter the marks along with answer sheet were sent before the Board/Council but even the said aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned Single Judge and as such, the order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 7. Per contra, Mr. S.P.Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Board/Council, has submitted that it is a clear cut case of involvement of disputed questions of fact and taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the learned Single Judge has not passed any positive direction. However, liberty has been granted to the writ petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of the competent civil court for redressal of his grievance and as such, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error. However, liberty has been granted to the writ petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of the competent civil court for redressal of his grievance and as such, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error. Learned counsel has referred one document appended to the counter affidavit dated 28.04.2015 as Annexure-E dated 03.03.2015 issued under the signature of the Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board (Higher Secondary), Patna wherefrom it is evident that the writ petitioner is pursuing his case for supply of mark-sheet since it is the specific case of the writ petitioner that the marks of Logic and Psychology subjects have not been mentioned in the mark-sheet but it would be evident from the aforesaid communication dated 03.03.2015 that in the mark-sheet which has been submitted before the concerned college, the marks of Logic and Psychology subjects have been mentioned while in the College Tabulation Register (CTR) the marks in the Logic and Psychology subjects have not been mentioned but by making manipulation the total 439 marks has been reflected therein showing the writ petitioner to have passed in Second Division and reference of partly absent is also there. Therefore, submission has been made that taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter which is totally in dispute since on the one hand the case of the writ petitioner is that there is no marks of Logic and Psychology in the mark-sheet while the mark-sheet which was submitted before the concerned college the marks in the subjects Logic and Psychology have been mentioned, if the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of disputed questions of fact, it cannot be said to suffer from an error. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 9. The prayer of the writ petitioner before the writ court was that a direction be given upon the respondent – Board to furnish the mark-sheet along with the marks of Logic and Psychology subject as in the mark-sheet there is no mention of the marks obtained by the writ petitioner in Logic and Psychology subjects wherein the case of the writ petitioner is that he had appeared in both the examinations and as such, there is no question of being absent in the said subjects. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has tried to impress upon the Court by making reference to the Attendance Register wherein his presence has been shown as also the plea has been taken about the stand of the St. Xavier’s College, Ranchi where the answer-sheets of the writ petitioner were again sent for evaluation/tabulation. On the other hand, the plea of the Examination Board is that the writ petitioner has never appeared in the Logic and Psychology subjects which is evident from the fact that on the one hand he has pursued the writ petition and now pursuing the Letters Patent Appeal but it would be evident from Annexure-E to the counter affidavit dated 28.04.2015 wherein he has already submitted his mark-sheet showing the marks of Logic and Psychology as also said to have passed in Second Division after getting 439 marks. This letter itself clarifies the position that the writ petitioner has committed forgery by filling the marks of the subjects Logic and Psychology and if that be so, the writ petitioner is not entitled to get any relief. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has disputed the aforesaid fact. 10. This Court, after appreciating the aforesaid argument and after going through the order passed by the learned Single Judge, is required to scrutinize as to whether there is involvement of disputed questions of fact or not since that is the ground taken by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly, the writ petitioner has approached this Court by filing writ petition wherein he has sought for a direction for issuance of fresh mark-sheet along with the marks of the subjects Logic and Psychology. The writ petitioner has not disputed the communication dated 03.03.2015, as appended as Annexure-E to the counter affidavit. He himself submitted the mark-sheet before the concerned college making reference of the marks obtained by him in the subjects Logic and Psychology and claimed to have passed in Second Division after getting 439 marks. The question is that when according to the writ petitioner there was no marks provided by the Board in the Logic and Psychology subjects then how mark-sheet has been submitted by the writ petitioner before the concerned college showing the marks obtained by him in the subjects Logic and Psychology. The question is that when according to the writ petitioner there was no marks provided by the Board in the Logic and Psychology subjects then how mark-sheet has been submitted by the writ petitioner before the concerned college showing the marks obtained by him in the subjects Logic and Psychology. Therefore, this Court, after going through the communication dated 03.03.2015, is of the considered view that the factual aspect about the allotment of marks by the Board is in serious dispute. Learned Single Judge, if on this factual background, has come to the conclusive finding about the involvement of disputed questions of fact which led the learned Single Judge to dismiss the writ petition, which according to our considered view, cannot be faulted with. 11. In view thereof and according to our considered view, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 12. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.