Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2895 of 2013 ====================================================== Danish Yazdani S/O Late Md. Sibgatullah R/O Vill-Harihans, P.S.- Hussainganj, Distt-Siwan Through His Legal Guardian Mother Namely Soghra Khatoon, W/O Late Md.Sibgatullah, R/O Vill-Harihans, P.S.- Hussainganj, Distt-Siwan .... .... Petitioner 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Education Officer, Siwan, Distt-Siwan 3. The Headmaster Of The Suryavansh High School, Bishwaniya, P.S.- Versus Darauli, Distt-Siwan 4. The Secretary Of The Bihar School Examination Board, Patna-17 5. Tuba Tabassum minor daughter of Md. Arif Ashraf under the guardianship of her father namely Md. Arif Ashraf, resident of village Harihans, P.S. Hussainganj, District Siwan .... .... Respondents ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 3 07-03-2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties. I.A. No. 1104 of 2013 2. This interlocutory application has been filed by one Tuba Tabassum for being added as respondent to this writ application and also be heard in opposition to the prayer made in this writ application. 3. Mr. N.A. Shamshi, learned counsel for the Intervener, has explained that the prayer made by the petitioner in this writ application, seeking quashing of an order dated 15.1.2013 passed by the Secretary to the Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Board’) cancelling the result of the matriculation examination of the petitioner, has a direct Patna High Court CWJC No.2895 of 2013 (3) dt.07-03-2013 2 bearing on the criminal case filed by the intervener Tuba Tabassum. In this regard, he has explained that the petitioner is an accused in a case of throwing of acid on the face and body of the minor girl, the intervener, being Hussainganj Police Station Case No. 248 of 2012 wherein he has taken a defence that on the basis of his matriculation certificate, he is juvenile but on enquiry the Board has cancelled such matriculation certificate and, therefore, any order passed by this Court as with regard to restoring the matriculation certificate with the date of birth of the petitioner would directly affect the intervener. 4. Mr. Sarvadeo Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the I.A. No. 1104 of 2013 wherein it has been stated that since the petitioner has neither been named in the First Information Report nor has been put on T.I. Parade, the intervener will have no locus-standi to be heard in opposition to the prayer made in this writ application. 5. This Court having heard learned counsel for the parties is of the view that the intervener is a fit person to be heard in opposition of the writ application, inasmuch as, the facts mentioned in the intervention application with regard to involvement of the petitioner in the criminal case lodged by the intervener and her family members have not at all been
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.2895 of 2013 (3) dt.07-03-2013 3 controverted. From the order-sheet of the Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2012 arising out of an order dated 12.12.2012 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Siwan, it would appear that the petitioner is directly involved in the criminal case wherein he has taken a plea of being juvenile on the basis of the matriculation certificate issued by the Board which has been cancelled and is subject matter of this writ application. The District Judge, Siwan in fact has remitted the matter back to the Juvenile Justice Board for determining the case of the petitioner to be juvenile and the petitioner wants to take advantage of the matriculation certificate which has been cancelled by the Board by the impugned order of this writ application. Thus, this Court would hold that the intervener is a fit person who should be heard in opposition to the prayer made in the writ application and as such, she is directed to be impleaded as respondent no.5.
Decision
6. I.A. No. 1104 of 2013 is, accordingly, disposed of. 7. Coming to the merit of this case, this Court would find that the prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “for quashing the order which contains in Memo No. SP-1357 dated 15.1.2013 issued by Secretary of the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna which has been communicated to the petitioner by a letter dated 23.1.2013 by the concerned Head Master. Patna High Court CWJC No.2895 of 2013 (3) dt.07-03-2013 4 However the said order and communication has been made without any show cause notice/opportunity to hearing to the petitioner.” 8. The facts giving rise to this writ application lie in a very narrow compass. The petitioner claims that he had been registered with the Board with registration no. 92502-40650-11 in the year 2011 and thereafter he was issued an admit card to appear in the Annual Secondary Examination of the year 2012 and the petitioner had also appeared in the 2012 examination and had passed the said examination in the first division for which the mark-sheet was issued to him on 29.5.2012. It is the case of the petitioner that on the basis of the mark-sheet and provisional certificate issue by the Board, the School Leaving Certificate dated 26.6.2012 had also been issued on 26.6.2012 but all of a sudden, the petitioner through a communication of the Headmaster dated 23.1.2013 came to know that his result of the Board Examination had been cancelled by an order dated 15.1.2013 passed by the Secretary to the Board. 9. Mr. Sarvadeo Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 15.1.2013 passed by the Secretary to the Board cancelling the result of the petitioner is bad and unsustainable as the same is in violation of the principle of natural justice, inasmuch as, the petitioner was never given Patna High Court CWJC No.2895 of 2013 (3) dt.07-03-2013 5 even a show-cause notice much less an opportunity of hearing before passing of the impugned order. He has further submitted that the said impugned order has been passed on the basis of the letter written by the District Education Officer, Siwan regarding the forged transfer certificate obtained by the petitioner for getting admitted in the school from which he had submitted his form and fees for appearing in the matriculation examination. Mr. Singh has explained that the action of the District Education Officer, Siwan reporting the matter to the Boards regarding forged transfer certificate of the petitioner was at the instance of someone who was inimical to the petitioner. 10. In this case, a counter affidavit has been filed by the Board wherein it has been stated that on an application filed by one Md. Ashif Ashraf i.e. the father of the Respondent no. 5 victim girl on 20.12.2012 before the District Education officer, Siwan as with regard to the petitioner producing forged transfer certificate for being admitted in Suryavansh High School, Bishwaniya, Darauli, Siwan, an enquiry was conducted by him and on the basis of the materials collected by him in course of enquiry, it had transpired that the petitioner had got admitted in the Suryavansh High School, Bishwaniya, Darauli, Siwan on the basis of a forged transfer certificate and thus on receipt of this Patna High Court CWJC No.2895 of 2013 (3) dt.07-03-2013 6 report of the D.E.O., Siwan dated 7.1.2013 the Board in exercise of his power had cancelled the result under Regulation 18 & 19 of Chapter V of Bihar School Examination Board Regulation 1964. 11. Before this Court would go into the issue, it has to be taken into consideration that the Intervener Respondent no. 5 is the daughter of Md. Ashif Ashraf who had filed the application before the District Education Officer on 20.12.2012, Annexure-A to the counter affidavit of B.S.E.B. which reads as follows:- **lsok esa Jheku~ ftyk f”k{kk inkf/kdkjh] flokuA fo’k; %& nkfu”k ;ktnkuh firk & flcxrqYykg xzke &gfjgkal Fkkuk & gqlSuxat ftyk & floku }kjk tkyh Qjsch ,oa QthZ izek.k i=ksa ds vk/kkjksa ij izkIr ek/;fed fo|ky; ls gkbZ Ldqy dk ijh{kkQy dk fcgkj fo|ky; ijh{kk lfefr iVuk ls izkIr ijh{kkQy ,oa vad i= dks fujLr djus ds laca/k esaA 1- ;g fd esjs }kjk lqpuk vf/kdkj vf/kfu; 2006 ds vUrxZr ekaxs x;s lwpuk ij lw;Zca”k gkbZ Ldwy fo”ofu;k floku us nkfu”k ;ktnkuh }kjk izos”k ds fy, nkf[ky fd;s x;s T.C (cid:216)ekad la[;k 37 izkIr gqvkA ftldh tkWp ls ;g ik;k x;k fd gfjgkWl ds pkjksa jktdh; e/; fo|ky; esa nkfu”k ;ktnkuh dk ukekadu ugha gSA vkSj u gh pkjksa e/; fo|ky;ksa ls Vh0lh0 la[;k 37 fuxZr gqvk gSA ftldh iq’Vh bu pkjksa jktdh; e/; fo|ky; gfjgkal ds iz/kkuk/;kikdks us fyf[kr :i ls vki dks ns nh gSA bl rjg ;g oxZ 8 dk Vh0 lh0 QthZ ,oa tkyh gqvkA mDr Vh0lh0 esa ftl uke dk fo|ky; ntZ gS ml uke dk fo|ky; floku ftyk esa ugha gSA 2- ;g fd tc nkfu”k ;ktnkuh fdlh fo|ky; ls 8ok¡ ikl Patna High Court CWJC No.2895 of 2013 (3) dt.07-03-2013 7 gh ugha rks fQj eSfV“d ijh{kkQy ,oa vadi= dSls ekU; gksxkA 3- ,slh fLFkfr esa tcfd xzke gfjgkal esa mDr uke dk dksbZ Ldwy gh ugha gS mDr Ldwy ds uke ij Vh0lh0 Hkh tkyh gS vksj lq;Zoa”k gkbZ Ldwy esa xyr ,oa ogka ls ijh{kk ds fy, jftLVªs”ku u0 92502&40650&11 o’kZ 2011 ds vk/kkj ij eSfV“d ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gksuk nksuks gh xyr gSA 4- fd”kksj U;k;ky; }kjk ts0bZ0 109@12 esa fnukad 12-12-12 ds ikfjr vkns”k esa lHkh izek.k i=ksa ds voyksdu ls ik;k gS fd e0 nkfu”k }kjk izLrqr fcgkj f”k{kk cksMZ }kjk izkIr vad i= ,o izek.k i= xyr vk/kkjksa ls izkIr fd;k x;k gSA rFkk e0 nkfu”k }kjk izLrqr izek.k i= tkyh vkSj Qjsch izek.k i=ksa ds vk/kkj ij vftZr fd;k x;k gSA bl fy, U;k;ky; ds rdZ ds vk/kkj ij eks0 nkfu”k dk mr eSfVªdqys”ku izek.k i= ,oa vadi= fujLr fd;k tkuk vko”;d izfrr gksrk gSa rkfd rqck&rcLlwe rstkc dk.M ds vkjksfir nkfu”k ;ktnkfu mDr tkyh izek.k i= ,oa xyr tUefrfFk ds vk/kkj ij eSfVªd ijh{kk ds izos”k i= ,oa vad i= ls tqcsukbZy fMfdys;j djkdj ckgj vkdj ekSt eLr ,o nSg~”kr dk ekgkSy iSnk djsxk tks vuqfpr gSA vr% Jheku~ ls fuosnu gs fd nkfu”k ;ktnkfu dk eSfV“d dk ijh{kkQy ,oa vadi= jn~n djus ds fy, Jheku~ **lfpo** fcgkj fo|ky; ijh{kk lfefr …ek/;fed fo|ky; ijh{kk‰ iVuk dks ,d i= fy[kdj mDr O;fDr dk ijh{kkQy ,oa vad i= jn~n djus dh vuq”kalk fd;k tk,A lkFk g vuq”kalk ds fy, fy[ks x;s i= dk ,d izfr eq>s Hkh nsus dh d‘ik dh tk,A layXu %& 1- pkjks e/; fo|ky; gjfgkal ds iz/kkuk/;kidks ls izkIr tkWp fjiksVA Patna High Court CWJC No.2895 of 2013 (3) dt.07-03-2013 8 2- nkfu”k ;ktnkfu dk vad i= ,oa iath;u i= 3- fd”kksj U;k;ky; floku dk J.E.-109/12 dk vkns”k dk izekf.kr Nk;kizfrA 4- d{kk 8 ikl dk T.C. ftlds vk/kkjk ij lw;Zo”k gkbZ Ldwy fo”ofuok floku esa ukekdu gqvkA vkosnd g0 eks0 vkflQ v”kjQ eks0 vkflQ v”kjQ gfjgkal** 12. It thus becomes clear that the father of the Respondent no. 5 on account of the involvement of the petitioner in the ghastly crime of acid throwing on the face of the daughter (intervener respondent no.5) having made full enquiry with regard to the claim of the petitioner of being juvenile and having found that the petitioner had got his date of birth manipulated and changed on the basis of the forged transfer certificate had brought this fact to the notice of the competent authority whereafter the District Education Officer, Siwan by his report dated 7.1.2013 had submitted a self-contained report against the conduct of the petitioner. The said report being relevant is quoted hereinbelow:- ^^izs’kd ftyk f”k{kk inkf/kdkjh floku lsok esa lfpo fcgkj fo|ky; ijh{kk lfefr iVuk floku fnukad 7-1-2013 Patna High Court CWJC No.2895 of 2013 (3) dt.07-03-2013 9 fo’k; %& nkfu”k ;ktnkuh] firk & flcxrqYykg dk ek/;fed] ijh{kkQy dks jn~n djrs gq, fu;ekuqdwy dkjZokbZ djus ds laca/k esaA egk”k;] mi;qZDr fo’k;d vkosnd Jh eks0 vkflQ v”kjQ] gfjgkal }kjk izkIr vkosnu ds vkyksd esa lwfpr djuk gS fd QthZ LFkkukarj.k izek.k i= ds vk/kkj ij Jh nkfu”k ;ktnkuh lw;Zoa”k gkbZ Ldwy fo”ofu;k] njkSyh] floku esa ukekadu djkdj okf’kZd ek0 ijh{kk 2012 esa lfEefyr gksdj m(cid:217)kk.kZrk izkIr dh gS] ftldk (cid:216)ekad 0161] vuq(cid:216)ekad 92502 gSA LFkkukarj.k izek.k i= la0 37 fnukad 24-4-2010 tks jktdh; e0 fo0 gfjgkl] floku }kjk fuxZr gqvk gS ds vk/kkj ij Jh ;ktnkuh dk ukekadu gqvk gSA vkosnd Jh eks0 vkflQ v”kjQ }kjk mDr Lfkkukarj.k izek.k i= dk lR;kiu lwpuk ds vf/kdkj ds rgr djk;k x;kA tk¡p ds (cid:216)e esa ;g ik;k x;k fd jk0e0fo0] gjfgkal uke dk dksbZ fo|ky; ugha gSA gfjgkal esa vofLFkr fo|ky;ksa ds iz0v0 }kjk izfrosfnr fd;k x;k gS fd nkfu”k ;ktnkuh uked Nk= fo|ky; esa ukekafdr ugha gS vkSj u gha LFkkukarj.k izek.k i= la0 37 fnukad 24-4-2010 fuxZr gqvk gSA iz/kkuk/;kid] lw;Zoa”k gkbz Ldwy] fo”ofu;k njkSyh us vius i=kad 08 fnukad 8-11-2012 ds }kjk lwpuk ds vf/kdkj ds rgr vkosnd dks lwpuk miyC/k djk;h gS fd nkfu”k ;ktnkuh dh tUe frfFk 2-11-1997 …nks uoEcj lurkuos‰ gS tcfd lfefr }kjk fuxZr vad i= esa tUe frfFk 2-1-98 …nks tuojh vBkuos‰ vafdr fd;k x;k gSA iz0v0] lw;Zoa”k gkbZ Ldwy fo”ofu;k ls i`PNk dh tk jgh gS fd LFkkukarj.k izek.k i= la0 37 fnukad 24-4-2010 dk lR;kiu vkids }kjk D;ksa ugha djk;k x;kA mijksDr fVIi.kh ls ;g Li’V gks jgk gS fd nkfu”k ;ktnkuh }kjk Qth <ax ls ukekadu djkdj eSfVªd Patna High Court CWJC No.2895 of 2013 (3) dt.07-03-2013 10 dh ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gksdj m(cid:217)kh.kZrk izkIr dh xbZ gSA vr,o nkfu”k ;ktnkuh ds ijh{kk Qy dks jn~n djus dh vuq”kalk dh tkrh gS] lkFk gh vkosnd Jh eks0 vkflQ v”kjQ] gfjgkal ds ewy vkosnu dks vuqyXudkssa ds lkFk layXu dj Hkstrs gq, dguk gS fd nkfu”k ;ktnkuh ij fu;ekuqdwy dkjZokbZ dh tk;A vuq0 14 iUukA fo”oklHkktu g0 vLi’V ftyk f”k{kk inkf/kdkjh floku** 13. In view of the above, it would be clear that there were documents to show that the date of birth of the petitioner became crucial issue as with regard to his claim of being juvenile on the date of occurrence and thus the proceedings for cancellation of matriculation certificate of the petitioner were initiated at the behest of the aggrieved persons, namely, the father of the respondent no.5 and the action was taken by the Board as it had found the very transfer certificate allegedly issued by the Government Middle School, Daxin Tola Harihans to be forged, inasmuch as, the Headmaster of the said school had issued a certificate on 15.11.2012 that the alleged transfer certificate bearing no. 37 dated 24.4.2010 was never issued from his school and in fact, the petitioner was never admitted in his school in the year 2008. Similarly, the Headmaster of Harihans Urdu School, Hussainganj (Siwan) also had certified that the transfer certificate Patna High Court CWJC No.2895 of 2013 (3) dt.07-03-2013 11 in question was not issued from his school and in fact the petitioner was also not a student of his school. There is yet another certificate appended to the counter affidavit of the Government Middle School Harihans (Hindi), Hussainganj wherein also it has been similarly stated that the petitioner was never admitted in the school at any point of time much less in the year 2008 or the transfer certificate in question was also not issued from the said school. 14. In the counter affidavit of the Board, the order of the Juvenile Justice Board dated 12.12.2012 has been also enclosed wherein full discussion has been made as with regard to the claim of the petitioner of being juvenile based only on the mark-sheet of the provisional matriculation certificate issued by the Board. In fact, the order of the Juvenile Justice Board dated 12.12.2012 reading as follows:- 12-12-12 ^^vkns”k vfHk;qDr nkfu”k dh vksj ls ,d vkosnu izLrqr dj dgk x;k dh mlds }kjk ftyk ,oa l= U;k;k/kh”k ds U;k;ky; tekur vkosnu izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk] ftlesa dgk x;k dh mlds izek.k i=ksa ls fyf[kr gS fd og fd”kksj gS] fcgkj] lsdsUMjh f”k{kk cksMZ }kjk tkjh vadi= ,oa izek.k i= ds vuqlkj tUefrfFk ds vuqlkj og mijk/k djus dh frfFk dks fd”kksj Fkk rFkk ;g ns[kus ls fd”kkjs yxrk gS vr% mls izkMDlu djk ds }kjk ryc fd;k tk;] vfHk;qDr vnkyr esa mifLFkr gqvk] mlds }kjk dgk x;k fd og izek.k i=kksa ds Patna High Court CWJC No.2895 of 2013 (3) dt.07-03-2013 12 vk/kkj ij vo;Ld gS mls tekur ij NksM+k tk;A vfHk;kstu dh rjQ ls ,d vkosnu mlh fnu izLrqr dj dgk x;k fd dfFkr vfHk;qDr eks0 nkfu”k tc eq[; U;k0 n.Mk0 lhoku ds U;k;ky; ls fjek.M fd;k x;k Fkk muds }kjk ml dh mez yxHkx 20 o’kZ vkadh x;h Fkh mlds }kjk nkf[ky izek.k i= ,oa vad i= nkfu”k ;ktnkuh ds gS vr% ;g ,d ne fojks/kkHkk’kh gS ftldh yRirk dj tkap ds fy;s U;k; fgr esa eks0 nkfu”k dks esfMdy cksMZ esa mez tkap gsrq Hkstk tk;A mHk; i{kksa ds rdksZ dks lquus ,oa i=koyh dj voyksdu djus ls Li’V gksrk gS fd eks0 nkfu”k }kjk izLrqr fcgkj f”k{kk cksMZ }kjk izkIr vadi= ,oa izek.k i= xyr vk/kkj izkIr fd;k x;k gSA ,d fyf[kr vkosnu esa vfHk;kstu }kjk dgk x;k fd ;g izek.ki= QthZ izek.ki=ksa ij vk/kkfjr gSA d{kk 8 ds LFkkukUrj izek.k i= esa mldh tUefrfFk 2-8-97 gS] ,d gkbZ Ldwy izek.k i= ds vuqlkj 2-1-98 gS d{kk 8 ds izek.k i= dh tkap djus ls Li’V gksrk gS fd ml fo|ky; esa mldk ukekadu ugha gS mDr izek.ki= ml fo|ky; ls fuxZr ugha gS fefMy Ldwy gfjgkal ds iz/kkuk/;kid }kjk ;g izek.ki= izLrqr fd;k x;k gS fd nkfu”k ;ktnkuh }kjk fn;k x;k LFkkukUrj.k izek.k i= esjs Ldwy ls fuxZr ugha gSA Ldwy gfjgkal }kjk izLrqr izek.k i= esa dgk x;k fd ukekadu jft0 ds vuqlkj eks0 nkfu”k dh tUefrfFk 2-1-91 gSA mijksDr foospuk ds vkyksd esa og fl) gksrk gS fd eks0 nkfu”k }kjk izLrqr izek.k i= tkyh vkSj Qjsch izek.ki=ksaa ds vk/kkj ij fuxZr fd;k x;k gS vr% U;k; fgr es tkyh ,oa QthZ vk/kkjksa ij izkIr gkbZ Ldwy ds izek.k i= ,oa vad i= esa vafdr tUefrfFk dks lgh ugha dgk tk ldrk gS vfHk;kstu i{k ds fojks/k ,oa vijk/k dh xEehj izd‘fr dks ns[krs gq;s eS bl fu’d’kZ ij igqaprk gw¡ fd vfHk0 eks0 nkfu”k dh mez dh tkap esfMdy cksMZ }kjk ,oa ds }kjk fd;k tkuk vko”;d gSA Patna High Court CWJC No.2895 of 2013 (3) dt.07-03-2013 13 vfHk;kstu i{k dk vkosnu Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA** will leave nothing for speculation that the date of birth of the petitioner became the bone of contention before the Juvenile Justice Board and the authenticity and correctness of the matriculation certificate and the provisional certificate containing the date of birth as 2.1.1998 issued by the Board itself became disputed on account of the documentary evidence. 15. It is true that this order dated 12.12.2012 became subject matter of appeal before the Sessions Judge, Siwan in Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2012 and the same has been set aside by the District Judge who has remitted the matter back to the Juvenile Justice board, Siwan for reconsideration as with regard to the constitution of medical board. 16. Nonetheless, the issue still remains as to whether the petitioner’s registration for the Board examination in view of the form submitted by the Headmaster of the Suryavansh H/S Siwan Bishwaniy showing the date of birth of the petitioner as to 2.1.1998 was based on a forged transfer certificate produced by the petitioner at the time of taking his admission in the school and whether the same eventually led to also issuance of an admit card and appearance of the petitioner in the Board examination on the basis of fraud. Patna High Court CWJC No.2895 of 2013 (3) dt.07-03-2013 14 17. One thing however is very clear that whatever be the seriousness of the matter against the petitioner, since the Board was considering the issue of cancellation of mark-sheet and the result of the petitioner of the matriculation examination in which he had already been declared to have passed, he had to be given a show-cause notice by way of opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order. From reading of the impugned order dated 15.1.2013 (Annexure-C) ^^fcgkj fo|ky; ijh{kk lfefr] iVuk vkns”k ftyk f”k{kk inkf/kdkjh] floku us vius i=kad 06 fnukad 7-1- 2013 }kjk Nk= nkfu”k ;ktnkuh firk &flcxrqYyk] ds laca/k esa QthZ LFkkukUrj.k izek.k i= ds vk/kkj ij lw;Zo”k gkbZ Ldwy]foLofu;k] njkSyh …floku‰ esa ukekadu djkdj jkSydksM 92502 Øekad 0161 ij okf’kZd ek/;fed ijh{kk] 2012 esa lfEefyr gksdj m(cid:217)kh.kZrk izkIr djus ds laca/k esa lwpuk nh gS rFkk muds }kjk mDr ijh{kkFkhZ ds ijh{kkQy dks jn~n djus dh vuq”kalk dh xbZ gSA rnuqlkj fcgkj fo|ky; ijh{kk lfefr dh fofu;ekoyh 1964 v/;k; V fofu;e 19 ds vuqlkj Nk= nkfu”k ;ktnkuh] firk flcxrqYyk jkSydksM 92502 Øekad 0161 okf’kZd ek/;fed ijh{kk] 2012] fo|ky; dk uke & lw;Zoa”k gkbZ Ldwy] foLofu;k] njkSyh floku ds ijh{kkQy dks jn~n fd;k tkrk gSA mDr Nk= dks lfefr }kjk fuxZr vad i= dk mi;ksx voS/k ,oa otZuh; gksxkA lfpo fcgkj fo|ky; ijh{kk lfefr] iVuk &17 Kkikad SP 1357 @iVuk] fnukad 15-1-2013 izfrfyfi ¼1½ iz/kkuk/;kid] lw;Zo”k gkbZ Ldwy foLofu;k] njkSyh floku dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko”;d dkjZokbZ gsrq izsf’kr A funs”k Patna High Court CWJC No.2895 of 2013 (3) dt.07-03-2013 15 fn;k tkrk gS fd mDr vkns”k dks lwpuk vius Lrj ls lacaf/kr Nk= dks nsuk lqfuf”pr djsaxsA ¼2½ ftyk f”k{kk inkf/kdkjh] floku dks muds i=kad 06 fnukad 7- 1-2013 ds Øe esa lwpukFkZ ,oa vko”;d dk;kZFkZ izsf’krA …3‰ ftyk inkf/kdkjh] floku dks lwpukFkZ lefiZr lfpo fcgkj fo|ky; ijh{kk lfefr] iVuk &17** it would be however clear that the entire action of cancellation of result of the matriculation has been taken on the basis of the report of the District Education Officer dated 7.1.2013 and as such, the order was passed on 15.1.2013 i.e. within a space of eight days. It is here that in view of the specific averment of the petitioner in paragraph no.14, reading as follows:- “14. That after perusal of impugned order it is clear that petitioner has not been issued any show cause notice before cancellation of his result which is in great disregard of the principle of natural justice.-----” the impugned order has to be held to be in violation of principle of natural justice, inasmuch as, in the counter affidavit paragraph no.14 of the writ application has not at all been denied by the Secretary to the Board. 18. It is true that under Article 18 & 19 of Chapter-5 of the Bihar State Board Regulation, 1964 reading as follows:- “18. Mal-Practice, indiscipline, etc.- In any case where it is found that the examination has been violated by error, improper conduct, or other causes or where mal-practices, Patna High Court CWJC No.2895 of 2013 (3) dt.07-03-2013 16 fraud, or act of indiscipline or use of unfair-means are reported to have been rescried to the Board shall have the power to cancel the examination or to withhold or amend the result in such case and to take such other action as it may deem fit. 19. In any case where the result of the examination has been ascertained and published and it is found that such result has been affected by error, mal-practice, fraud, or any other cause whereby an examinee has in the opinion of the Board been party to or privy to or connived at such mal-practice, fraud or improper conduct the Board shall have power at any time, not with standing the issue of the certificate to amend the result of such examinee and to make such declaration as it may consider necessary in that behalf.” there is a power vested in the Board for cancellation of result but this Court is not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the facts being admitted such power can be exercised by the Board even without following the principle of natural justice. The law in this regard is well settled that any order causing civil and evil consequences has to be passed after following the principle of natural justice and in fact, the provision of natural justice has to be read inbuilt in such provision. Reference in this connection made be usefully made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of S.L. Kapoor Vs. Jagmohan & Ors. reported in AIR 1981 SC 136 wherein it was held as follows:- "In our view the principles of natural justice know of no exclusionary rule dependent on whether it would have made any difference if natural justice had been observed. Patna High Court CWJC No.2895 of 2013 (3) dt.07-03-2013 17 The non-observance of natural justice is itself prejudice to any man and proof of prejudice independently of proof of denial of natural justice is unnecessary. It ill comes from a person who has denied justice that the person who has been denied justice that the person who has been denied justice is not prejudiced. As we said earlier where on the admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion is possible and under the law only one penalty is permissible, the Court may not issue its writ to compel the observance of natural justice, not because it is not necessary to observe natural justice but because Courts do not issue futile writs." 19. The exclusion of principles of natural justice in fact has to be specifically provided in the Statute i.e. in the Rules or Regulations failing which the Rules of natural justice will have to be invariably read even if such provision has not been incorporated therein. This aspect in fact was also conclusively decided by the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Rash Lal Yadav vs. the State of Bihar & ors., reported in (1994)5 SCC 267. 20. In fact so far Bihar School Examination Board and its Regulation are concerned, this matter is also no longer res integra, inasmuch as a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bihar School Examination Board v. Rajeev Kumar & ors., reported in 2005(1) PLJR 75, after considering a number of authorities laid down by the Apex Court including on the cases of Board of High Patna High Court CWJC No.2895 of 2013 (3) dt.07-03-2013 18 School & Intermediate Education vs. Ghanshyam Das Dupta, reported in AIR 1962 SC 1110, Bihar School Examination Board vs. Subhas Chandra, reported in AIR 1970 SC 1269 and Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal, M.P. vs. Abhilash Shiksha Prasar Samiti & ors., reported in (1998) 9 SCC 236, had held that even in case of use of unfair means detected after examination, the principles of natural justice have to be invariably followed. An exception, however, was carved out in respect of use of unfair means detected in the examination hall/centre of examination with those discovered subsequently after examination was over. The Division Bench had classified only the category of such cases where the students using unfair means caught red handed and expelled at the centre to be not entitled for adherence to principle of natural justice. 21. In the light of the aforementioned discussions, this Court will have no option but to hold that the impugned order dated 15.1.2013 cancelling the matriculation certificate on account of violation of the principles of natural justice is bad and cannot be sustained. It is accordingly quashed. 22. This Court, however, having quashed the impugned order only on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice would not allow the matter to be dropped specially when the petitioner is facing a very serious allegation and is also taking Patna High Court CWJC No.2895 of 2013 (3) dt.07-03-2013 19 advantage of the disputed mark-sheet and matriculation certificate containing the date of birth as 2.1.1998 in a pending criminal case for demonstrating that he is juvenile. In that view of the matter, this Court would direct the Secretary to the Board to issue a show- cause notice to the petitioner enclosing the report of the District Education Officer with its enclosures including the complaint of the father of Respondent no. 5 dated 20.12.2012 and get it served on the petitioner. 23. At this stage, Mr. Sarvadeo Singh has pointed out that since the petitioner is in judicial custody, liberty should be given to his father to appear before the Secretary to the Board both for receiving a show cause notice and also filing a show-cause reply on behalf of the petitioner. This Court would allow such prayer and accord such leave to the petitioner to be represented by his father or legal guardian or by legal practitioner before the Board. 24. Such an authorised person by the petitioner whether he be the father or legal guardian must appear before the Secretary to the Board within a month of receipt of this order to receive the copy of such show cause notice and a show cause reply by or on behalf of the petitioner must be filed within 15 days of its receipt. 25. The Secretary to the Board having ensured service of Patna High Court CWJC No.2895 of 2013 (3) dt.07-03-2013 20 the copy of show cause notice on the petitioner and/or his father would proceed further in the matter and if he would find that despite service of the show cause notice on the petitioner or his father no show cause reply has been field within 15 days of its receipt or a show cause reply has been filed on behalf of the petitioner he would place the matter before the Board or the competent authority authorised by the Board for passing a fresh order strictly in accordance with law. The final order must be passed within one month from the date of service of the show cause notice on the petitioner or his father. 26. Till such an exercise is completed, the mark-sheet and the matriculation certificate of the petitioner issued by the Board however will not be acted upon by any court or authority for any purpose. 27. With the aforementioned liberty, observations and directions, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) surendra/-