The Bihar School Examination Board, Sinha Library Road, Patna v. The Deputy Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

Sultanganj, P.O. + P.S. – Sultanganj, District – Patna (Bihar) …………….. Respondents =================================================== APPEARANCE For the Appellants : Mr. S.A. Alam, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, Advocates For the NCTE : Mr. S.N. Pathak, Advocate =================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K.KATRIAR ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 4 23/7/2010 This Appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) against the judgment and order dated 22nd June 2009 passed by the 2 learned Single Judge in above CWJC No.6848 of 2009. The subject matter at dispute was examination due to be held on 24th June 2009 by the Board for the Teachers Training Colleges. The writ petitioner – respondent no.6 herein sought permission to take examination. Such permission was refused on the ground that the writ petitioner had undertaken the training course in the Academic Year 1991-92. He was, therefore, not eligible for taking examination in the year

2009. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioner filed the above CWJC. No.6848 of 2009. The learned Single Judge by his order dated 22nd June 2009 directed the Board to accept the fees and the form from the petitioner and other similarly situated students and to allow them to take examination commencing on 24th June 2009. Feeling aggrieved, the Board has preferred the present Appeal. The writ petitioner was a student of one Dr. Zakir Hussain, Primary Teachers‟ Training College of Education, Sultanganj, Patna (hereinafter referred to as 3 „the College‟) during the Academic Year 1991-92. As the College was not recognized, its students were not permitted to appear at the examination held by the Board. Thus, at the relevant time the petitioner could not take the examination given by the Board and qualify himself as a trained teacher. In the year 2006 the College approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No.11428 of 2006 and sought direction to the Board to allow the students of the academic years 1979-95 to take examination given by the Board. The said petition was dismissed on the ground of un-explained delay and laches. Feeling aggrieved the College preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 99 of 2007. Pending the said Letters Patent Appeal, by order dated 13th June 2007, the Bench was pleased to direct the Board to allow the students of the College for the period from 1979-81 till 1994-96 to take examination to be held in the month of June 2007. Pursuant to the said order the writ petitioner and such other students were permitted to take the examination in the month of June 2007. However, Letters Patent Appeal No.99 of 2007 came to be dismissed on 23rd June 2008. 4 Feeling aggrieved the College approached the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court by order dated 21st November 2008 directed the Board to publish the result of the students of the College. We are informed at the bar that the writ petitioner had taken the examination in June, 2007 but he failed at the said examination. Since then the writ petitioner filed the above C.W.J.C. No.6848 of 2009 for a direction to the Board to permit the petitioner to take examination scheduled on 24th June 2009. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 22nd June 2009, directed the Board to allow the writ petitioner and other similarly situated students to appear at the ensuing examination. Feeling aggrieved the Board has preferred the present Appeal. We are of the view that the grievance made by the Board is justified. The writ petitioner and such others who have undergone training before more than 15 years can not be permitted to take examination now in the year 2010 along with the students who have completed training in the academic year 2009-10. Besides, in view of the passage of time the writ petitioner and such others 5 have become age barred for any public employment. Therefore also, the writ petitioner need not be permitted and the Board need not be directed to allow such students to take the examination. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this Appeal. The impugned judgment and order dated 22nd June 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside. Learned Advocate Mr. Krishna Kant Singh appearing for the writ petitioner has placed before us copy of the advertisement published in the daily newspaper of 23rd July 2010. The advertisement has been published by the Board to inform the teachers training students who had failed to pass the examination during the years 2004-09 that they may take the examination advertised on 8th July 2010. It is also indicated that this will be the last examination under the old course. In the submission of Mr. Krishna Kant Singh in view of the said advertisement the writ petitioner is entitled to take the ensuing examination. Learned Advocate Mr. S.A. Alam appearing for the Board disputes the proposition. In his submission the writ petitioner is not covered by 6 the said advertisement. Be that as it may, we observe that in the event the writ petitioner is eligible to take the examination pursuant to the advertisement dated 8th July 2010 as indicated in the advertisement dated 23rd July 2010, this order shall not preclude him from taking the said examination. The Appeal is dismissed. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. ( R. M. Doshit, CJ.) (S. K. Katriar, J.) Neyaz/ Vinay