Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO.212 OF 2013 =================================================== SRI BISHUNDEO KAPARI HIGH SCHOOL, KHAJURI, P.O. - CHHATAR, POLICE STATION - SHAMBHUGANJ, DISTRICT - BANKA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY SANTOSH KUMAR YADAV SON OF SRI BISHUNDEO YADAV RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - KHAJURI, P.O. - CHHATAR, POLICE STATION - SHAMBHUGANJ, DISTRICT - BANKA. .... .... PETITIONER/S versus 1.THE BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD , THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, BUDH MARG, PATNA. 2.THE SECRETARY, BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD, BUDH MARG, PATNA. .... .... RESPONDENT/S =================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Santosh Kumar Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent B.S.E.B:Mr.Lalit Kishore AAG-I & Mrs.Binita Singh, Adv. ================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 3/ 28-01-2013 Heard counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ application the prayer of the petitioner reads as follows: “Directing the respondents to issue mark-sheet to the students of the institution petitioner‟s have appeared in the supplementary examination 2010 by the order of this Hon‟ble Court.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has who submitted that the petitioner Sri Bishundeo Kapari High School, Khajuri in the district of Banka (hereinafter referred to as „the School‟) having been established in the year 1982 and also Patna High Court CWJC No.212 of 2013 (3) dt.28-01-2013 2 having a permission to establish the school from the State Government of Bihar in the year 1989 has been sending its students for appearance in Annual Secondary Examination being conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board). In this regard he has explained that in the year 2008 the Board had registered 554 students of the petitioner school but in the year 2009 only 180 registration forms were provided by the District Education Officer, Banka although 600 students were required to be registered in the Secondary School Examination in the year 2009. 4. In this regard he has submitted that the petitioner had filed a writ petition, C.W.J.C.No. 14268/2009 seeking a direction to the respondent Board for issuance of 600 OMR forms for their being registered with the Board for 2009 Examination and an order was also passed on 4.1.2010 by this Court directing the Board to consider issuance of OMR forms to the petitioner school in accordance with its claim of 600 students. This Court according to learned counsel in fact in its order dated 4.1.2010 had also made it clear that the intake capacity of the school of only 180 students was to be made applicable Patna High Court CWJC No.212 of 2013 (3) dt.28-01-2013 3 with prospective effect i.e. from the next academic session and accordingly, the order dated 4.1.2010 was passed for the academic session 2009 in respect of the examination which were to be held with effect from March, 2010. 5. Counsel has also explained that pursuant to the aforementioned direction of this Court, contained in the order dated 4.1.2010 in C.W.J.C.No. 14268/2009 the Board had issued registration forms by way of OMR forms to 602 students but when the Board subsequently was not allowing them to appear in the Annual Examination another writ petition C.W.J.C.No. 3297/2010 was filed wherein an order was passed on 3.3.2010 directing the Board to issue Admit-cards for such of students of the petitioner school who were beyond any controversy and had fulfilled the requirement for being eligible to appear in the Secondary Examination. In fact learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the said order dated 3.3.2010 of this Court to demonstrate that it had also directed for deciding about those students about whom the Board was not satisfied and to pass an order disclosing its satisfaction by a reasoned order in respect of such students who did not have a claim to appear as a regular Patna High Court CWJC No.212 of 2013 (3) dt.28-01-2013 4 student of the petitioner school. 6. It is in this background that the learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the Board had issued examination forms for only 300 students and directed the petitioner school to submit the same within one week alongwith the result of sent up examination. Counsel for the petitioner has also explained that the petitioner school due to paucity of time had submitted/ deposited the examination form of only 200 students alongwith the result of sent up examination and as against the Board had issued Admit-card of only 196 out of 200 students and had permitted them to appear in the supplementary examination. 7. It is the further case of the petitioner that out of 196 students 149 students had appeared in the examination and out of them 138 students had passed while rest 11 had failed as would be apparent from the cross list/ tabulation register but the Board had sent mark-sheets of only 30 students of the school and has withheld the mark-sheet of rest of 119 students. Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that when 119 students alike 30 students were also allowed to appear in the supplementary examination of the
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.212 of 2013 (3) dt.28-01-2013 5 year 2010, the Board was duty bound to declare their result and also issue their mark-sheets. 8. In this case a counter affidavit has been filed wherein it has been stated that the Board was required to verify the genuineness of the candidates appearing in the Secondary School Examination and in fact in view of the notification dated 7.6.2003 the petitioner school being neither a Government nor a recognized school but only having permission for establishment in terms of Article 3 of Chapter IV of the Bihar School Examination Board Regulations, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) was tagged alongwith a recognized High School, Shambhuganj, Banka. 9. According to the counter affidavit subsequently in view of the order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C.No. 14268/2009 as with regard to issuance of registration forms for 600 students though the Board had allowed registration of 600 students but then after the order was passed by this Court on 4.1.2010 the Board had entrusted an enquiry to the District Education Officer, Banka as with regard to determination of genuineness of the students of the school. The District Education Officer, Banka after making enquiry on Patna High Court CWJC No.212 of 2013 (3) dt.28-01-2013 6 the basis of the documents furnished by the petitioner school had submitted his report on 3.2.2010 from which it transpired that the student of the petitioner school had not appeared for being sent up at High School, Shambhuganj, Banka with which it was tagged in terms of the relevant notification of the Board dated 7.6.2003. 10. Thus, the stand of the Board is that since the students of the petitioner school had not fulfilled criteria under Article 3 of Chapter IV of the Bihar School Examination Board Regulation, 1964 as with regard to passing a preliminary test examination, the representation of the Headmaster of the petitioner school was rejected by an order dated 24.2.2010 and this fact was also brought to the notice of this Hon‟ble Court when the petitioner school in the meantime had filed C.W.J.C.No. 3297/2010 seeking a direction for appearance of its registered students in the Secondary School Examination of the year 2010. 11. It has also been explained in the counter affidavit that in terms of the order of this Court dated 3.3.2010 in C.W.J.C.No. 3297/2010 the Headmaster of the petitioner school Patna High Court CWJC No.212 of 2013 (3) dt.28-01-2013 7 was directed to submit his reply with evidence on 12.3.2010 but the Headmaster of the petitioner school instead of producing the records and appearing in person had sent his letter dated 23.3.2010 wherein he had claimed that the entire records of the school were destroyed in fire. The respondents in their counter affidavit have also explained that when the Headmaster of the petitioner school was again directed to appear in terms of the Board‟s letter no. 171 dated 28.4.2010 he had appeared before the Secretary of the Board on 7.5.2010 and had taken stand by giving in writing that the school records have been destroyed in fire. In the said written communication the Headmaster of the school had also admitted that by mistake he had conducted preliminary test examination in his own school instead of the recognized High school Shambhuganj and therefore, he should be allowed to amend his mistake by holding of a special test examination. 12. The stand of the Board, therefore, in the counter affidavit is that only the genuine students of the petitioner school as per report of the District Education Officer, Banka were entitled for declaration of their result and in this regard detailed break up of four categories Patna High Court CWJC No.212 of 2013 (3) dt.28-01-2013 8 of the students of the petitioner school have been given in the counter affidavit with an emphasis that when the examination forms of 200 students of the petitioner school for taking the supplementary Secondary School Examination was submitted in the office of the Board, it was found that only 41 students had submitted their forms and since out of 41 students 2 were absent in preliminary test examination, the Board had issued Admit-cards to only 39 students and out of them since 9 of them were absent in the supplementary Secondary Examination the Board had declared the result of only 30 students and their mark-sheet had also been issued. As with regard to rest of them the enquiry was still going on. 13. In view of the pleadings on record this Court would find that the petitioner school cannot claim declaration of result of each and every student, who had appeared in the supplementary examination of the year 2010, as a matter of right. In this regard it has to be kept in mind that when this issue had arisen this Court in its order dated 3.3.2010 in C.W.J.C.No. 3297/2010 had held as follows:
Decision
“ The writ petition appears to be raising no question of law presently, but only Patna High Court CWJC No.212 of 2013 (3) dt.28-01-2013 9 questions of facts. It appears to be a disputed fact whether a student was a genuine and bona fide student of the petitioner‟s institution or not. No fault can be found on the objection on behalf of the Board at this stage. Let the Board issue the admit card for such students of the petitioner‟s any institution beyond are who controversy to the satisfaction of the Board so that they may appear in the ensuing matriculation examination. In so far as those students about whom the Board is not satisfied, it may fix a date for representative hearing to be granted to the petitioner‟s institution in respect of such students. The Board is then required to pass an order disclosing its satisfaction by a reasoned order if it be of the opinion that such students do not have a claim to appear as the students of the petitioner‟s institution. Learned counsel for the Board very fairly submits that if after such hearing any bona fide students are found to have been left out, the Board shall make necessary arrangements for holding of a separate examination for them, if circumstances so warrant.” 14. In view of the above, it would be clear that this Court had categorized the students of the petitioner school in two categories, namely, genuine students and the others whose genuineness Patna High Court CWJC No.212 of 2013 (3) dt.28-01-2013 10 was to be proved by the petitioner school before the Bihar School Examination Board. From the counter affidavit it would be clear that in terms of the order of this Court the Headmaster of the petitioner school by letter no. 97 dated 4.3.2010 was given a detailed show cause notice as would be apparent from Annexure „F‟ to the counter affidavit which for the sake of clarity is quoted hereinbelow: “izs’kd] lfpo] fcgkj fo|ky; ijh{kk lfefr iVuk&17 ^^ lsok esa] iz/kkuk/;kd Jh fo’.kqnso dkijh mPp fo|ky; [ktwjh] ckWadk a iVuk] fnukad 4@3@2010 fo’k;%& lh0 MCyw0 ts0 lh0 ua0 & 3297@ 2010 esa ikfjr U;k;kns”k ds vuqikyu ds lEcU/k esa A egk”k;] mi;qZDr fo’k; ds laca/k esa vkns”kkuqlkj dguk gS fd ekuuh; iVuk mPp U;k;ky; }kjk lh0 MCyw0 ts0 lh0 la[;k 14268@09 esa fnukad 04-01-2010 dks ikfjr U;k;kns”k ds vuqikyu esa oknh fo|ky; ds fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds iath;u gsrq vko”;drkuqlkj vks0,e0vkj0 izi= miyC/k djk;k tk pqdk gS ,oa mlds vk/kkj ij fo|kfFkZ;ksa dk iath;u Hkh fd;k x;k gS A fo’k;kafdr okn esa fnukad 03-03-2010 dks ikfjr U;k;kns”k esa fnukad 05-03-2010 ls izkjEHk gksus okyh ek/;fed ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gksus gsrq oknh fo|ky; ls lacaf/kr oSls fo|kfFkZ;ksa dk izos”k i= fuxZr djus dk Hkh funsZ”k gS ftudk ekeyk fookn ls ijs gksus ds laca/k esa lfefr larq’V gks A lh0 MCyw0 ts0 lh0 la[;k 14268@09 esa ikfjr U;k;kns”k ds vuqikyu esa iath;u gsrq vks0 ,e0 vkj0 izi= fuxZr djus ds dze esa ftyk f”k{kk inkf/kdkjh] ckWadk ls oS/k Nk=@Nk=kvksa ds laca/k esa muds ukekadu iath rFkk mRizs’k.k ijh{kk dk ijh{kkQy tkWap dj izfrosnu miyC/k djkus dk vuqjks/k lfefr ds i=kad ch0ih0&141 fnukad 10-01-2010 rFkk i=kad ch0ih0&291 fnukad 28-01-2010 }kjk fd;k x;k Fkk A tkWap gsrq fo|ky; vfHkys[k ftyk f”k{kk inkf/kdkjh] ckWadk dks miyC/k djkus gsrq i=kad ch0 ih0 291 fnukad 28-01-2010 dh izfrfyfi vkidks Hkh Hksth x;h Fkh A ftyk f”k{kk inkf/kdkjh ckWadk ds }kjk tkWapksijkUr i=kad 174 fnukad 03-02-2010 ds }kjk izfrosnu miyC/k djk;k x;k gS A tkWap izfrosnu ds vuqlkj okf’kZd ek/;fed ijh{kk 2010 ds fy, mRizsf’kr fn[kk;s x;s 602 Nk=@ Nk=kvksa esa ls dksbZ Nk=@Nk=kvksa dk uke fo|ky; ds izos”k iath esa ugha gS A vf/kdrj Nk=@ Nk=kvksa dk ukekadu QthZ LFkkukUrj.k izek.k i= ds vk/kkj ij fd;k x;k ik;k tk jgk gS A lkFk gh ftyk f”k{kk inkf/kdkjh] ckWadk Patna High Court CWJC No.212 of 2013 (3) dt.28-01-2013 11 ds }kjk Hksts x, tkWap izfrosnu ds vuqlkj oknh fo|ky; ds Nk= @ Nk=k fu;ekuqlkj Mh0,0,0 mPp fo|ky; “kEHkwxat ckadk ¼ekU;rk izkIr fo|ky;½ esa vk;ksftr mRizs’k.k tkWap ijh{kk esa “kkfey ugha gq, gSaa A tgkWa rd oknh fo|ky; ds iathd`r fd;s x;s fo|kfFkZ;ksa dks vkxkeh okf’kZd ek/;fed ijh{kk 2010 esa “kkfey gksus gsrq ijh{kk vkosnu izi= vkfn Hkjs tkus ,oa izos”k i= fuxZr djus dk iz”u gS] bl laca/k esa fuEukafdr fu;e ,oa rF; vafdr fd;k tk jgk gS %& …1‰ fcgkj fo|ky; ijh{kk lfefr vf/kfu;e & 1952 dh /kkjk 17 ds vkyksd esa fufeZr fcgkj fo|ky; ijh{kk lfefr fofu;ekoyh 1964 ds v/;k;&4 ds dafMdk 1 ds vuqlkj oknh fo|ky; dks vius ;gkWa ls gh lh/ks Nk=@Nk=kvksa dks mRizsf’kr djkdj ek/;fed ijh{kk esa lfEefyr djkus dk vf/kdkj ugha gS A …2‰ fcgkj fo|ky; ijh{kk lfefr fofu;ekoyh 1964 ds v/;k;&4 dh dafMdk 3 …lh‰ ds vuqlkj oknh fo|ky; ds Nk=@ Nk=kvksa dks fdlh izLohd‘fr@ ekU;rk izkIr fo|ky; }kjk vk;ksftr mRizs’k.k tkWap ijh{kk esa Hkkx ysdj mlesa mrh.kZ gksus dh vfuok;Zrk gS A ¼3½ lsds.M~zh] izkFkfed ,oa o;Ld f”k{kk foHkkx] fcgkj ljdkj dh vf/klwpuk la[;k 314 fnukad 7 twu 2003 ds vuqlkj oknh fo|ky;] tks fd ,d LFkkiuk vuqefr izkIr fo|ky; gS] ds Nk=@Nk=kvksa dk Loraa= :i ls iath;u djkus ds ckn mUgsa mlh jktdh;@ jktdh;d‘r fo|ky; ds mRizss’k.k tkWap ijh{kk esa ikl djus dh vfuok;Zrk gS] tgkWa ls os vius iath;u djk;s gSa A Nk=@Nk=kvksa dk vks0 ,e0 vkj0 QkeZ Hkdj tek djus gsrq fnukad 10-02-2010 rd vkidks le; fn;k x;k Fkk A vkids }kjk lh0 MCyw0ts0lh0 la[;k 14268@09 esa fnukad 04-01-10 dks ikfjr U;k;kns”k ds i”pkr Hkh fo|ky; ds Nk=@Nk=kvksa ds fy, mRizss’k.k tkWap ijh{kk Mh0,0,0 mPp fo|ky; “kEHkwxat] ckWadk esa vk;ksftr djus gsrq dHkh Hkh iz;kl ugha fd;k x;k ,oa bl laca/k esa dksbZ vH;kosnu Hkh ugha fn;k x;k A fu;ekuqlkj vf/kd‘r ugha gksrs gq, Hkh ,dne xyr :i ls vius fo|ky; esa gh mRizs’k.k tkWap ijh{kk lEiUu djk;k x;k gS A vkids }kjk mijksDr dafMdk ¼1½ ¼2½ ¼3½ esa of.kZr fu;e ,oa ljdkjh funsZ”kksa dk [kqyk mYya/ku djrs gq, vfu;fer rjhds ls vius gh fo|ky; Lrj ij tkWap ijh{kk ysdj ijh{kkQy Hkst fn;k x;k gS ftldh iqf’V ftyk f”k{kk inkf/kdkjh] ckWadk ds i=kad 174 fnukad 3-2-2010 ds }kjk Hksts x, izfrosnu ls Hkh gksrh gS A vkids fo|ky; ds fdlh Hkh Nk=@ Nk=k dk okf’kZd ek/;fed ijh{kk 2010 ds fy, vkosnu i= ,oa “kqYd tek ugha gS rFkk fdlh Hkh Nk=@ Nk=k dk vH;fFkZRo dkuwuh :i ls oS/k ugha ik;k x;k gS A oknh fo|ky; ls lacaf/kr fdlh Hkh Nk=@ Nk=k ftudk lgh vH;fFkZRo ugha ik;k tk jgk gS dks okf’kZd ek/;fed ijh{kk 2010 tks fnukad 05-03-2010 ls izkjEHk gksus tk jgh gS esa lfEefyr djkus gsrq izos”k i= fuxZr ugha fd;k tk ldrk gS A lh0MCyw0ts0lh0ua0 3297@2010 ¼Jh fo’.kqnso dkijh gkbZ Ldwy [ktwjh] “kEHkwxat ckWadk cuke jkT; ljdkj ,oa vU;½ esa fnukad 03-03-2010 dks ikfjr U;k;kns”k ds vkyksd esa ftyk f”k{kk inkf/kdkjh] ckWadk ds i=kad 174 fnukad 03-02-2010 …Nk;k izfr layXu‰ rFkk bl i=- esa mYysf[kr fcgkj fo|ky; ijh{kk lfefr fofu;ekoyh 1964 ds v/;k;&4 dh dafMdk 1 ,oa 3 ¼lh½ rFkk lsds.M~zh] izkFkfed ,oa o;Ld f”k{kk foHkkx] fcgkj ljdkj dh vf/klwpuk la[;k 314 fnukad 7 twu 2003 ds lanHkZ esa vki viuk i{k lk{; lfgr fnukad 12-03-2010 dks v/kksgLrk{kjh ds le{k izLrqr djsa rkfd U;k;kns”k ds vuqikyu esa vxzsRrj dkjZokbZ fd;k tk lds A fo”oklHkktu g0@& lfpo fcgkj fo|ky; ijh{kk lfefr] iVuk A Kkikad fof/k 97@ iVuk] fnukad 4@3@2010 Patna High Court CWJC No.212 of 2013 (3) dt.28-01-2013 12 izfrfyfi % iz/kkuk/;kid] Mh0,0,0 mPp fo|ky;] “kEHkwxat] ckadk dks lwpukFkZ izsf’kr A** (underlinnig for emphasis) 15. It has to be kept in mind that the Headmaster of the school did not comply the order of the Board dated 4.3.2010 within the prescribed period i.e. by 12.3.2010 and instead sent a letter dated 23.3.2010 (Annexure „F/1‟) wherein apart from the other facts he had stated as follows: “ …20‰ esjs fo|ky; ds lHkh Nk= fu;fer] ukekafdr ,oa oS/k gSa A …21‰ tkWap ijh{kk Vsxhax fo|ky; ds iz/kkuk/;kid dh ns[k&js[k esa fy;k x;k Fkk A fu;e gS fd tc rd Nk= iathd‘r ugha gksrk] rc rd tkWap ijh{kk ugha gksxk A ¼22½ iath;u QkeZ fuxZr djus ds le; eq>s ,slk dksbZ funsZ”k vkids }kjk ugha feyk fd mDr fo|ky; ls fo”ks’k tkWap ijh{kk ysdj ijh{kk Qy vks0,e0vkj0 ds lkFk tek djsa A ¼23½ftyk f”k{kk inkf/kdkjh] ckadk ,oa vkids }kjk lqfu;ksftr <+ax ls ,oa nqHkkZouk ls izsfjr gksdj esjs fo|ky; ds Nk=&Nk=kvksa dks okf’kZd ek/;fed ijh{kk&2010 esa “kkfey ugha gksus fn;k A …24‰ ifj.kke Lo:i mRrsftr Nk=ksa us essjs fo|ky; dks rksM+ & QksM+ dj vkx ds gokys dj fn;k A ftlls fo|ky; dk lkjk vfHkys[k u’V gks x;k lkFk gh lkFk esjs ?kj esa Hkh vkx yxk fn;k A ¼25½ bldh lkjh ftEesokjh vkidh vkSj ftyk f”k{kk inkf/kdkjh] ckadk dh gS A ** 16. It is also not in doubt that on receipt of the aforementioned letter the Board again by the order of the Secretary contained in letter dated 28.4.2010 had given one more indulgence to the Headmaster of the petitioner school for submitting evidence on 7.5.2010 and on 7.5.2010 when the Headmaster had appeared he had taken the following plea: Patna High Court CWJC No.212 of 2013 (3) dt.28-01-2013 13 ^^ fo’k;%& vkids Hkonh; i=kad fof/k 171 fnukad 28-04-2010 ds laca/k esa A egk”k;] mijksDr fo’k;d vkids Hkonh; i=kad fof/k 171 fnukad 28-04-2010 ds laca/k esa fuosnuiwoZd vkxzg gS fd %& …1‰ fu/kkZfjr le; ij izos”k i= fuxZr ugha gksus ds QyLo:i vkdzksf’kr Nk=ksa us fnukad 04-03-2010 dks fo|ky; dks rksM+QksM+ dj vkx ds gokys dj fn;k A …2‰ vkx yxkus ds dze esa fo|ky; ds lHkh vfHkys[k tydj u’V gks x;k tks voyksduh; gS A …3‰ izos”k&i= fuxZr ugha gksus ij fo|ky; dh rFkk esjh viwj.kh; {kfr gqbZ gS A …4‰ dqN Nk=ksa us esjs ?kj dks Hkh rksM+&QksM+ dj lHkh lkeku bdV~Bk dj vkx yxk fn;k A …5‰ nksuksa ,Q0 vkbZ0 vkj0 dh Nk;k izfr layXu dj jgk gwWa A …6‰ o’kZ 2009 dh tkWap ijh{kk tks 15-12-2009 dks lapkfyr Fkh mlesa eSa iath;u ds vHkko esa vius fo|ky; ls tkWap ijh{kk ys fy;k Fkk ftlesa fcgkj fo|ky; ijh{kk lfefr ds vkns”k dh vko”;drk Fkh A blesa esjh Hkwy gqbZ gS A …7‰ Hkwy dks lq/kkjrs gq, eSa fuosnu djrk gwWa fd fo”ks’k tkWap ijh{kk ysdj esjs fo|ky; ds Nk=ksa dks fo”ks’k ijh{kk vFkok iwjd ijh{kk esa cSBus dh vuqefr iznku dh tk; A lHkh Nk=&Nk=kvksa dk iath;u gks pqdk gS A eSa fcgkj fo|ky; ijh{kk lfefr ds lHkh fu;eksa dk v{kj”k% ikyu djus dks rS;kj gwWa A vr% Jheku~ ls izkFkZuk gS fd fo”ks’k ifjfLFkfr esa esjs fo|ky; ds Nk=&Nk=kvksa dks fo”ks’k ijh{kk vFkok iwjd ijh{kk esa “kkfey djus dh egrh d‘ik dh tk; A Hkfo’; esa ,slh dksbZ xyrh ugha gksxh A ** (underlining for emphasis) 17. In view of the aforementioned stand of the Headmaster of the school wherein he had not only accepted the error committed on his part in holding test examination in his own school and had himself offered that a special test examination should be conducted for the students of the petitioner school, today he cannot wriggle out and say that the terms and conditions put in the consequential order which was passed by the Secretary to the Bihar School Examination Board Patna High Court CWJC No.212 of 2013 (3) dt.28-01-2013 14 on 17.9.2010, as contained in Annexure „H‟ are bad either on fact or in law. The contents of the said order dated 17.9.2010 for the sake of clarity is also quoted hereinbelow: “lh0 MCyw0 ts0 lh0 la[;k 3297@2010 ¼Jh fo’.kqnso dkijh mPp fo|ky; [ktqjh cuke jkT; ljdkj ,oa vU;‰ esa fnukad 03@03@2010 dks ikfjr U;k;kns”k esa ekuuh; iVuk mPp U;k;ky; }kjk funsZ”k fn;k x;k Fkk fd fnukad 05@03@2010 ls izkjEHk gksus okyh ek/;fed ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gksus gsrq oknh fo|ky; ls lEcfU/kr oSls fo|kfFkZ;ksa dk izos”k i= fuxZr fd;k tk;s ftudk ekeyk fookn ls ijs gksus ds lEcU/k esa lfefr larq’V gks A lkFk gh “ks’k fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds lEcU/k esa frfFk fu/kkZj.k dj oknh laLFkk dks lquk tk;sA iwoZ esa oknh fo|ky; tks fd LFkkiuk dh vuqefr izkir fo|ky; gS] ds }kjk nk;j lh0 MCyw0 ts0 lh0 la[;k 14268@09 esa fnukad 04@01@2010 dks ikfjr U;k;kns”k ds vuqikyu esa iath;r gsrq vks0 ,e0 vkj0 izi= fuxZr djus ds dze esa ftyk f”k{kk inkf/kdkjh] ckWadk ls oS/k Nk=&Nk=kvksa ds lEcU/k esa muds ukekadu iath rFkk mRizs’k.k ijh{kk dk ijh{kkQy tkWap dj izfrosnu miyC/k djkus dk vuqjks/k lfefr ds i=kad ch0 ih0 141 fnukad 16@01@2010 rFkk i=kad ch0 ih0 291 fnukad 28@01@2010 }kjk fd;k x;k Fkk A ftyk f”k{kk inkf/kdkjh ckadk ds }kjk tkWapksijkUr i=kad 174 fnukad 03@02@2010 ds }kjk izfrosnu miyC/k djk;k x;k gS A tkWap izfrosnu ds lkFk layXu vuqyXud lwph ds vuqlkj fuEufyf[kr fLFkfr ikbZ x;h A …d‰ izfrosnu ds vuqyXud 01 esa oSls 18 Nk=@ Nk=kvksa dh lwph gS ftudk 2004&05 esa ,oa 2005&06 ds izos”k iath esa ukekadu gS vkSj ;g lHkh mRizs’k.k lwph esa Hkh gS A ¼[k½ izfrosnu ds vuqyXud 02 esa fcuk ukekadu ds gh mRizsf’kr Nk=&Nk=kvksa dh lwph esa lHkh 74 mRizs’k.k lwph esa oS/k crk;k x;k gS A …x‰ izfrosnu ds vuqyXud 3 esa dqy 31 QthZ LFkkukUrj.k izek.k i=ksa dh Nk;k izfr layXu gS A …?k‰ izfrosnu ds vuqyXud 4 esa ckadk ftyk ls fHkUu ftys esa vofLFkr fo|ky;ksa }kjk fuxZr LFkkukUrj.k izek.k i= tks lacaf/kr ftyk ds ftyk f”k{kk inkf/kdkjh }kjk izfrgLrk{kfjr ugha gS] ds vk/kkj ij ukekafdr dqy 338 esa ls 247 Nk=&Nk=kvksa dk uke mRizs’k.k lwph esa crk;k x;k gS A …M-‰ izfrosnu ds vuqyXud&5 esa QthZ LFkkukUrj.k izek.k i=ksa ds vk/kkj ij ukekafdr dqy 268 esa 226 dks mRizs’k.k lwph esa crk;k x;k gS A Patna High Court CWJC No.212 of 2013 (3) dt.28-01-2013 15 …p‰ blds vfrfjDr izfrosnu ds vuqyXud&6 ds :i esa layXu }kfjdk ve‘r vlQhZ mPp fo|ky; “kEHkwxat ckWadk ¼jktdh;d`r fo|ky;½ ds i=kad&46 fnukad 03-02-2010 ds vuqlkj oknh fo|ky; ds Nk=&Nk=k fu;ekuqlkj }kfjd ve`r v”kQhZ mPp fo|ky; “kEHkwxat] ckWadk esa vk;ksftr mRizs’k.k tkWap ijh{kk esa “kkfey ugha gq, gSa A mYys[kuh; gS fd lsds.M~zh] izkFkfed ,oa o;Ld f”k{kk foHkkx] fcgkj ljdkj dh vf/klwpuk la[;k 314 fnukad 07-06-03 ds vuqlkj oknh fo|ky;] tks fd ,d LFkkiuk vuqefr izkIr fo|ky; gS] ds Nk=&Nk=kvksa dks Lora= :i ls iath;r djkus ds ckn mUgsa mlh jktdh;@ jktdh;d‘r fo|ky; ds mRizs’k.k tkWap ijh{kk esa ikl djus ds vfuok;Zrk gS] tgkWa ls os iath;u djk;s gSa A oknh fo|ky; ds fdlh Hkh Nk=&Nk=k dk okf’kZd ek/;fed ijh{kk 2010 ds fy, vkosnu i= ,oa “kqYd tek ugha Fkk rFkk fdlh Hkh Nk=&Nk=k dk vH;fFkZRo dkuwuh :i ls oS/k ugha ik;k x;k A blfy, fnukad 05-03-2010 ls izkjaaHk gksus okyh okf’kZd ek/;fed ijh{kk 2010 esa lfEefyr gksus gsrq izos”k i= fuxZr ugha fd;k x;k A U;k;kns’k ds vuqikyu eas iz/kkuk/;kid] Jh fc".kqnso dkijh mPp fo|ky; [ktwjh] ckadk dks fnukad 12-03-2010 dks lk{; lfgr viuk i{k j[kus gsrq lfefr dk;kZy; ds i=kad fof/k&97 fnukad 04-03-2010 ds ek/;e ls lwpuk Hksth x;h] ijUrq fu/kkZfjr frfFk ij iz/kkuk/;kid ds }kjk viuk i{k ugha j[kk x;kA fo|ky; ds lfpo Jh larks"k dqekj ;kno dh vksj ls Jh larks"k dqekj oekZ] vf/koDrk us vius i=kad 137 fnukad 09-04-2010 ds }kjk bl ekeys esa yhxy uksfVl fn;k Fkk ftlesa lquokbZ gsrq frfFk fu/kkZj.k dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;k FkkA oknh fo|ky; ds iz/kkuk/;kid@lfpo dks ftyk f’k{kk inkf/kdkjh ckadk ds i=kad 174 fnukad 03-02-2010 rFkk lfefr dk;kZy; ds mDr i=kad 97 fnukad 04-03-2010 esa mYysf[kr fcgkj fo|ky; ijh{kk lfefr fofu;ekoyh 1964 ds v/;k;&4 dh dafMdk 1 ,oa 3…lh0‰ rFkk lsdsUMzh izkFkfed ,oa O;Ld f’k{kk foHkkx] fcgkj ljdkj ds vf/klwpuk la[;k 314 fnukad 07-06-2003 ds lanHkZ esa viuk i{k lk{; lfgr fnukad 07-05-2010 dks iwokZgu 11 cts j[kus gsrq lfefr ds i=kad fof/k 171 fnukad 20-04-2010 }kjk lwfpr fd;k x;kA fu/kkZfjr frfFk fnukad 20-04-2010 dks iz/kkuk/;kid] mPp fo|ky; [ktwjh] ckadk mifLFkr gksdj vius i=kad 36 fnukad 07-05-2010 ds ek/;e ls crk;k fd izos’k i= fuxZr ugha gksus ds QyLo:i vkdzksf"kr Nk=ks us fnukad 04-03-2010 dks fo|ky; rFkk muds ?kj esa rksM+QksM+ fd;k x;k vkSj vkx yxk nh x;h ftlds dkj.k fo|ky; ds lHkh vfHkys[k u"V gks x;sA iz/kkuk/;kid ds }kjk vius gh fo|ky; esa tkap ijh{kk ysus dh Hkwy Lohdkj Patna High Court CWJC No.212 of 2013 (3) dt.28-01-2013 16 fd;k x;k rFkk vuqjks/k fd;k x;k fd fo’ks"k ifjfLFkfr esa fo|ky; ds Nk= Nk=kvksa dh fo’ks"k tkap ijh{kk ysdj fo’ks"k ijh{kk vFkok iwjd ijh{kk esa ’kkfey djk;k tk;sA iz/kkuk/;kid ds }kjk ftyk f’k{kk inkf/kdkjh] ckadk ds tkap izfrosnu eas n’kkZ;s x;s voS/k ukekadu xyr ugha lkfcr fd;k tk ldkA ftyk f’k{kk inkf/kdkjh] ckadk ds izfrosnu ds vk/kkj ij okf"kZd ek/;fed ijh{kk 2010 ds fy, oknh fo|ky; ls lacaf/kr Nk=&Nk=kvksa dks iz/kkuk/;kid] }kfjdk ve‘r v’kQhZ mPp fo|ky; ’kEHkwxat }kjk tek fd;k x;k iath;u gsrq lefiZr vkosnu i=ksa dh lesfdr fooj.kh esa fofHkUu dksfV ds Nk=&Nk=kvksa dks fpfUgr fd;k x;kA (i) 14 ,sls Nk=&Nk=k ik;s x;s ftudk uke nks ukekadu iath esa gSA (ii) 66 Nk= Nk=k fcuk ukekadu ds gh lesfdr fooj.kh esa ik;s x;s gSA (iii)nwljs ftys ls fuxZr LFkkukUrj.k izek.k i= tks laca af/kr ftyk f’k{kk inkf/kdkjh }kjk izfrgLrk{kfjr ugha gS] ds vk/kkj ij ukekafdr 237 Nk=&Nk=k lesfdr fooj.kh esa fpfUgr fd;s x;s gSA (iv) QthZ LFkkukUrj.k izek.k i= ds vk/kkj ij ukekafdr Nk=&Nk=k fpfUgr fd;k x;k gSA ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd lesfdr fooj.kh ds dze la[;k 266&267 ij ,d gh Nk= jatu dqekj dk uke ntZ gSa blds vfrfjDr lesfdr fooj.kh esa 63 ,sls Nk=&Nk=k dk uke ik;k x;k gS tks ftyk f’k{kk inkf/kdkjh] ckadk ds izfrosnu esa ugha gSA vFkkZr bu 63 Nk= Nk=kvksa dks ftyk f’k{kk inkf/kdkjh us voS/k ugha ik;k gSA nwljs ftys ls fuxZr LFkkukUrj.k izek.k i= tks lacaf/kr ftyk f’k{kk inkf/kdkjh }kjk izfrgLrk{kfjr ugha gS ds vk/kkj ij ukekafdr 237 Nk= Nk=k dk ukekadu nks"kiw.kZ ik;k tk jgk gS ijUrq voS/k ugha ekurs gq, budk Hkh mDr 63 Nk= Nk=kvksa ds lkFk iath;u dkMZ fuxZr fd;k tk jgk gSA fo’ks"k ifjfLFkfr esa bu 300 Nk=&Nk=kvksa dks vkxkeh ijh{kk iwjd ek/;fed ijh{kk 2010 esa lfEEfyr gksus gsrq ijh{kk vkosnu i= fu/kkZfjr le; lhek ds varxZr tek djus dh vuqefr nh tkrh gSa A iz/kkuk/;kid] }kfjdk ve‘r v’kQhZ mPp fo|ky; ’kEHkwxat ckadk bu 300 Nk=&Nk=kvksa dh fo’ks"k tkap ijh{kk dk vk;kstu dj ijh{kkQy blh ekg esa lfefr dk;kZy; dks miyC/k djk;ssxs rkfd tkap ijh{kk esa mRrhZ.k Nk=&Nk=kvksa dk iwjd ek/;fed ijh{kk 2010 gsrq izos’k i= fuxZr fd;k tk ldsA ’ks{k Nk=&Nk=kvksa dk ukekadu voS/k izekf.kr ik;s tkus ds dkj.k mudk iath;u jn~n fd;k tkrk gSA** (underlining for emphasis) Patna High Court CWJC No.212 of 2013 (3) dt.28-01-2013 17 18. From the reading of the aforementioned order dated 17.9.2010 it would be clear that the permission which was given under special circumstances for appearance of 300 male/ female students of the petitioner school was hedged with the specific conditions that the Headmaster of the petitioner school will make these 300 students to appear in the test examination in Dwarika Amrit Asharfi High School, Shambhuganj, Banka and the result of special test examination will also be submitted, whereafter the Admit-card for supplementary examination would be issued. It is in this context that the stand of the respondents in paragraphs no. 17 to 27 acquire significance and are quoted hereinbelow: “17.That in view of the above in order to permit only the genuine students of the petitioner school for their registration, etc as per report of the District Education Officer, Banka contained in letter no. 174 dated 3.2.2010 the students of the petitioner school were put into four categories. In first category (i.e. Category A) names of 14 students were found in two admission register. In second category (i.e. Category B) names of 66 students were found in the consolidated statement (for registration) but whose names were not in the admission register. In third category (i.e. Category C) names of 237 students were identified in the consolidated (for registration) of other districts who had been admitted in the petitioner school without Transfer Certificates counter signed by the District Education Officer of their respective districts. In fourth category statement having their Patna High Court CWJC No.212 of 2013 (3) dt.28-01-2013 18 secondary (i.e. Category D) were the students who had been found to have been admitted in the petitioner school on the basis of forged School Transfer Certificate. Apart from these four categories there was another category of students (i.e. Category E) consisting of 63 students whose names were mentioned in the consolidated statement (for registration) but who were not shown as illegal students in the report of the District Education Officer, Banka vide the said letter dated 3.2.2010. 18. That thereafter it was decided the Board to allow registration cards to be issued in favour of 300 students of the petitioner school and also to allow them to submit their examination forms within the time fixed to appear in the ensuing school supplementary examination, 2010 because (i) as per the above report vide letter no. 174 dated 3.2.2010 of the District Education Officer, Banka 237 students (i.e. Category C) were admitted in the petitioner school were of other districts whose Transfer Certificate was not counter signed by the respective District Education Officers as such it was treated that the admission of these 237 students were defective but not illegal and (ii) as per the said report vide letter no. 74 dated 3.2.2010 of DEO, Banka 63 students (i.e. Category E) whose names were in the (for consolidates registration) were not mentioned in the said report i.e. he did not find admission of these 63 students to be illegal. Accordingly, Board issued order vide memo no. 368 dated 17.9.2010 to the said affect directing the Headmaster Dwarika Amrit Asharfi High School, Shambhuganj, Banka to conduct special sent up examination for these 300 students of the petitioner school (i.e. Categories C and E) and to submit their result and also cancelled the registration of the remaining students of the petitioner school (i.e. categories A, B and D). Admit cards were to be issued only to such of these 300 students for appearing in the supplementary Secondary School Examination 2010 who would have been declared pass in the Preliminary Test. After issuance of the order vide statement Patna High Court CWJC No.212 of 2013 (3) dt.28-01-2013 19 Secondary memo no. 368 dated 17.9.2010 it was detected that out of aforesaid 237 students (i.e. Category C) the two students were below 14 years (on 1st March of the examination year) as such vide memo No. 375 dated 22.9.2010 only 298 students were allowed to appear in the Preliminary Test. On 17.9.2010 the registration card of 298 students was received by the Headmaster of the petitioner school from the office of the Board. 19. That after the sent up test, examination forms of 200 students of the petitioner school for taking the School supplementary Examination 2010 were submitted in the office of the Board. In category E out of above mentioned 63 students only 41 students had submitted their forms. Out of these 41 students 2 were absent in the Preliminary Test. Thus admit cards for 39 students for this category of students were issued. 9 students were full absent in the Supplementary Secondary School Examination, 2010. The remaining 30 students of Category E took the said exam and passed and accordingly their marks sheets have been issued because they are not within any enquiry. 20. That now coming to students of Category C (i.e. above 237-2 under aged students) 159 of these students submitted their examination forms. Out of these 2 students were also absent in the Preliminary Test and 1 student was not amongst the aforesaid 298 students who were allowed to appear in the Preliminary Test vide aforesaid memo No. 368 dated 17.9.2010 read with memo no. 375 dated 22.9.2010. Therefore, admit cards were prepared in the names of remaining 156 students of this category, 36 students of this category were absent in the supplementary school examination and thus 120 students took the said examination. Altogether Admit card was issued to only 195 students and marks sheet of students who are absent are not issued by the Board. 21. That the District Education Officer, Banka vide his letter no. 1516 dated 29.9.2010 raised strong objection on treating the aforesaid 237 students (i.e. secondary Patna High Court CWJC No.212 of 2013 (3) dt.28-01-2013 20 secondary category C) as genuine and stated that as per his enquiry the Transfer Certificate of the students were appears to be fake. Therefore in view of this objection of the DEO, Banka mark sheets of the above 122 students out of 237 students (i.e. Category C) who had taken the school supplementary examination 2010 have not been issued by the Board. The aforesaid letter dated 29.9.2010 was received in the office of the Board on 5.10.2010 whereas Admit cards were issued on 4.10.2010. 22. That in view of the objection of the DEO, Banka vide letter No. 1516 dated 29.9.2010 relating to students of the petitioner school falling in Category C initially it was decided to verify the questionable Transfer Certificte by sending the concerned Section Officer of the Board to concerned schools from where it was issued, but later on it was decided to request the concerned Regional Deputy Director of Education, Munger Division, Munger and the District Education Officer, Bhagalpur for verification of the Transfer Certificate of 129 students (the list was of 131 but in that 2 names were repeated) and accordingly, letter Nos. 1145 dated 27.05.2011 and 1146 dated 27.05.2011 respectively were issued to them by the Board. 23. That out of the aforesaid 129 Transfer Certificates, 31 were shown to be issued from the schools situated in Munger. As per report of the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Munger Division, Munger contained in his letter No. 671 dated 14.07.2011 out of these 31 Transfer Certificates, the Transfer Certificates of 2 students has yet not made available to Board by the RDDE, Munger Division. 24. That as per report of the District Programme Officer, Bhagalpur contained in his letter No. 50 dated 06.01.2012 out of 98 Transfer Certificates, the Transfer Certificate of 75 students were reported as fake. The report of Transfer Certificate of 23 students has yet not made available to Board by the DPO, Bhagalpur. 25. That reminder for sending report of the remaining 2 and 23 Transfer Patna High Court CWJC No.212 of 2013 (3) dt.28-01-2013 21 Apart therefrom secondary Certificates is being sent to of the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Munger Division, Munger and to the District Education Officer, Bhagalpur respectively. the verification relating to other 29 Transfer Certificates is also in process. It is pointed out here that these certificates (total 158) under enquiry relate to students of Category C of the petitioner school who had taken the above school supplementary examination as also those who were issued admit cards but they were absent. 26. That till date as per the above verification reports which have been received relating to 104 Transfer Certificates in the Board out of the aforesaid Transfer Certificates of the students of the petitioner school who fall in Category C no Transfer Certificate has been reported genuine thus no mark sheet in respect of these have been issued. And at present verification of the remaining 2, 23 and 29 Transfer Certificates (total 54) of students of category C has not reached its logical conclusion. On their report final decision would be taken to issue mark sheets or not. Result of one student is defective. The relevant provisions under the Board’s 1964 Regulations are contained in Clauses 18 and 19 of Chapter V thereof. 27. That in view of the facts and circumstances stated above the petitioner school cannot claim that mark sheets of the above students falling under Category C be issued by the Board and thus the prayer made by it in this writ petition is not sustainable, as also the writ petition is not maintainable on account of non joinder of necessary party i.e. the State respondents.” 19. Thus, from the stand of the respondent Board it becomes clear that permission given to the students for appearing in the examination was with specific rider and conditions and in fact the Patna High Court CWJC No.212 of 2013 (3) dt.28-01-2013 22 Board had every reason to hold an enquiry with regard to genuineness of the students who had appeared in 2010 supplementary examination. 20. It has to be noted that the Board till date has not declared the result of the students of the petitioner school except 30 of them who have been found to be genuine and for rest of them the enquiry is still going on. There are series of allegations against the petitioner school, inasmuch as there are 14 students whose names have been found in two Admission Registers, 66 students whose names have been found in the consolidated statement prepared for registration but their names have not been found in the Admission Register. In the third category there are 237 students who have been identified in the consolidated statement for registration who have been admitted in the petitioner school without having their transfer certificate countersigned by the District Education Officer of their respective district and in the fourth category there are students who have been found to have been admitted in the petitioner school on the basis of forged school transfer certificate. In fact there is also fifth category of 63 students whose names were mentioned in the consolidated Patna High Court CWJC No.212 of 2013 (3) dt.28-01-2013 23 statement for registration but who were not shown as illegal students in the report of the District Education Officer. 21. There can be no two views in law that mere registration of a student in the Board‟s examination does not confer any right for also either appearing in the examination or declaration of the result in the examination. Registration in fact is the first step in terms of Article 22 of Chapter IV of the Board’s Regulation which reads as follows: “22.Registration of candidates.- (i) Subject to conditions prescribed under these regulations, the registration of all candidates including private candidates appearing at the Secondary School Examination shall be made by the Board. (ii) The registration fee will be Rs.5 per student. (iii) Applications from regular candidates with requisite fee for registration duly forwarded by the Head of the Institution shall be received up to 31st March of the preceding year of the Board Examination. No application for registration shall be entertained after this date. (iv) A private candidate shall also send the application for registration with requisite fees through the Head of the Patna High Court CWJC No.212 of 2013 (3) dt.28-01-2013 24 Institution from which he intends to be sent up for the Board Examination latest by the 31st March. (v) A private candidate however can register himself upto 31st July of the preceding year on payment of late fine of Rs.5 (Rupees five) only. (vi) Ex-students not registered earlier can get themselves registered till the last date for submission of fee and forms with late fine for that examination. (vii) Duplicate registration card will be issued to a candidate in case his/ her card is lost, on payment of Rs.2 as fee. (viii) Those schools which have not got their all or some of their students registered till 31st March, 1973 may get registered after submitting their respiration fees and application forms alongwith Rs.5 as late fine per candidate latest by 31st May, 1973. This concession is meant only for the year 1973. (ix) Such schools whose period of recognition has expired or whose recognition is under consideration or where there are students in class XI in anticipation of recognition will have to get their students registered in accordance with clauses (ii), (iii), (vi) and (viii). (x) Students who have migrated from other States and have got regular admission in class XI of any school of the State will have to get themselves registered within a month of their admission or in Patna High Court CWJC No.212 of 2013 (3) dt.28-01-2013 25 accordance with clause (iii).” 22. Such Registration is only for enabling regular/ private students to also become eligible for appearing in the Board Examination. The eligibility for appearing in the Board’s Examination infact has also been statutorily circumscribed in Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Chapter IV of 1964 Regulation which reads as follows: “1. Eligibility of School.-(i) Subject to such conditions as may be specified by the Board from time to time, every recognized Secondary School in the State of Bihar shall be eligible to send up candidates for the Board‟s Secondary or Higher Secondary Examination as the case may be. (ii) Every Secondary School shall- (a) supply to the Board on or before such dates as may be fixed by the Board such returns and information as may be required by the Board from time to time. (b) maintain such registers and records of the students sent up by the school as may be required by the Board from time to time. (c) carry out and observe such instruction in connection with the Board‟s examination as may be issued by the Board from time to time and shall give necessary facilities for conduct the examination. to the Board‟s (iii) The Board may recommend to the Board Patna High Court CWJC No.212 of 2013 (3) dt.28-01-2013 26 of Secondary Education or other appropriate authorities the withdrawal, cancellation or suspension of recognition of any high school on one or more of the following grounds: (a) that the standard of teaching inthe school has considerably deteriorated or is not up to the mark. (b) that the school authorities have failed to carry out the instructions issued by the Board from time to time. 2. Eligibility of candidates.- Subject to conditions prescribed under these regulations, the following class of candidates shall be eligible to be sent up for the examinations of the Board: (a) The candidate who has attended a regular course of study in the topmost class in one or more high schools for at least one session immediately preceding the examination in which he intends to appear and whose record of work and conduct are assessed to be satisfactory and who has been found fit for being sent up on the basis of a written examination held at the concerned school. (b) The candidate who has failed at the examination of the Board or could not appear therein after having been sent up and has not joined any high school, on the production of a candidate of (i) good conduct and (ii) diligent and regular study from the headmaster or from the Patna High Court CWJC No.212 of 2013 (3) dt.28-01-2013 27 principal of the school last attended by him. (c) The candidate who has been duly registered by the Board under Article 22 of Chapter IV of this Regulation. Explanation.- In the case candidate who has once failed at the Board‟s Examination and is again admitted to a school to attend a regular course of study in the topmost class, the term „session‟ means the period between the publication of results of the examination at which he failed and the next annual examination. 3. Eligibility of Private candidate for Secondary School Examination.-(a) A candidate who has not attended any recognized secondary school as pupil at any time during one year immediately preceding the examination in which he wants to appear may be admitted to the Board‟s Secondary School Examination as a private candidate. (b) Such private candidate as have not been resident in the State for at least one year immediately prior to the Secondary School Examination will not be permitted to appear at the Board‟s examination, unless they are the sons or wards of Government servant transferred from another State within that period. (c) In order to be eligible for appearing at the Secondary School Examination, such private candidates shall have to pass a preliminary test examination held at any Government secondary school or other Patna High Court CWJC No.212 of 2013 (3) dt.28-01-2013 28 secondary school appointed by the Director of Public Instruction for the purpose. (d) Such candidates shall also have to produce a certificate of good conduct from a respectable person of the locality to the satisfaction of the head of the institution concerned. (e) The private candidates shall have to register himself in the board under article 22 of Chapter IV of this regulation.” 23. As noted above, from the aforementioned Regulations it is clear that only a recognized school which as a matter of right can claim appearance of the students as a regular students in the examination conducted by the Board. A school like the petitioner school which is not a recognized school but only having permission for establishment in fact has to send up its candidate as a private student for its being tagged up with a recognized institution. In the case of the petitioner school it has been admitted by the Headmaster of the School himself in his show cause reply dated 7.5.2010 (Annexure-G) to the counter affidavit that he had committed a mistake in holding test examination in his own school whereafter the Board had directed for holding of Special Test Examination Patna High Court CWJC No.212 of 2013 (3) dt.28-01-2013 29 in Dawarika Amrit Asharfi High School, Shambhuganj, Banka. 24. That apart when the Article 2 or Article 3 of Chapter IV of 1964 Regulation clearly envisages regarding passing of a test examination, in case of regular students of recognized school from their own school and in case of private students in the test examination to be held at the Government Secondary School or other Secondary School as prescribed by the Director, the petitioner school cannot claim as a matter of right for declaration of result by the Board only because it had been granted conditional permission for appearance of its students in 2010 Supplementary Examination. 25. It has to be also kept in mind that the result of the petitioner school has not yet been declared and therefore, there being no concept of cancellation of result of the students of the petitiner school who have already appeared in the examination the Board‟s power in respect of mal-practice, indiscipline in the matter of declaration of result under Articles 18 and 19 of Chapter V reading as follows: “18.Mal-practice, indiscipline etc.- In any case where it is found that the examination has been violated by error, Patna High Court CWJC No.212 of 2013 (3) dt.28-01-2013 30 improper conduct, or other causes or where mal-practice, fraud, or act of indiscipline or use of unfairmeans are reported to have been practised, the Board shall have the power to cancel the examinatin or to withhold or amend the result in such cases and to take such other action as it may deem fit. 19. In any case where the result of the examination had been ascertained and published and it is found that such result has been affected by error, malpractice, 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, notwithstanding the issue of the certificate to amend the result of such examinees and to make declaration as it may consider necessary in that behalf.” will also straightway come into operation specially when there is a big question mark on the genuineness of the students of the school petitioner, who had appeared in 2010 Supplementary Examination. 26. By-now it is well settled that if any candidate has appeared in the examination conducted by the University or the Board contrary to the statutory provisions made in the Rules, Regulations, Bylaws etc., his result cannot be Patna High Court CWJC No.212 of 2013 (3) dt.28-01-2013 31 declared as a matter of right. It is this aspect of the matter which has been settled by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Amarendra Pratap Singh & ors. v. Lalit Narain Mithila University & ors., reported in 1987 PLJR 591, wherein apart from the other thing it has been held as follows: “20. ... ... ... If the law places a total ban on the students of unrecognized and unaffiliated institution to take the examination of Bachelor of Education then it is not for this Court to override the same and of all things through the medium of a mandamus contrary to law. Indeed, Mr. Tara Kant Jha was right in submitting that the University might make a mistake or may have acted erroneously but the High Court cannot possibly mandate something contrary to law, or the perpetuation of an illegality. Consequently, he futher submitted that in the situation no question of discrimination now arises and, indeed, it will be incongruous and a case of reverse discrimination in so far as the petitioners are seeking a mandamus contrary to statutory provisions and to perpetuate a direction in a judgment which stands overruled. 21. It remains to refer briefly to the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners on this aspect. In Shri Krishan v. The Kurukschetra university (supra) their Patna High Court CWJC No.212 of 2013 (3) dt.28-01-2013 32 Lordships were considering the provisions of clause 2(b) of Ordinance X in Volume I of the Kurukshetra university Calendar. On the specific language of that provision their Lordships held that the University had no power to withdraw the candidature of the appellant. They also noticed that in Premji Bhai Ganesh Bhai Kshatriya v. Vice Chancellor, Ravishankar University, Raipur (A.I.R. 1967 Madhya Pradesh 194) there was no provision in Ordinance 19 and Ordinance 48 of the Raipur University which enabled the Chancellor to withdraw the permission. Both the judgments, therefore, turned wholly on the specific language of the statutory provisions applicable. As has been shown earlier, in the present case regulations 18 and 37 expressly confer such a power. The cases, therefore, are plainly distinguishable. 22. In S.A.F. Abbas and others v. State of Bihar & others (supra) it has been held that an administrative order by persistent repetition may become quasi judicial. There is no quarrel with that proposition. However, I regret my inability to appreciate as to how this judgment in any way would advance the case of the petitioners herein. Similarly, learned counsel‟s reliance on paragraph 74 in Dr. C.M.Srivastava v. The State of Bihar & others. (1972 PLJR 182) would only further highlight the basic requirements before a writ of mandamus can possibly issue, and far from aiding the petitioners Patna High Court CWJC No.212 of 2013 (3) dt.28-01-2013 33 would indeed boomerang on their case. On this aspect I would not wish to equivocate that even though the quality of mercy may indeed be twice blessed in the poetic fields, yet it cannot in the realm of law be allowed to override the fundamental requirements for the issuance of a mandamus. Indeed, if I recall aright, a mandamus can issue only as a command for the performance of stautory public duty for which the petitioners have a corresponding enforceable right. However hard be the case and howsoever large be the need for compassion, no mandamus can issue or be permitted to issue contrary to law and the statutory provisions applicable. 22(a). To finally conclude, the answser to the question posed at the very outset is rendered in the negative and it is held that no amount of compassion for an unfortunate student of an unrecognized and unaffiliated eductional institution warrants a mandamus for the declaration of his examination result contrary to the statutory provisions and University regulations. 23. In the light of the aforesaid conclusion, it is manifest that nothing survives in the petitioners‟ case. The respondent University has established that both under the Act and under the University regulations the petitioners were ineligible for sitting in the examination of the Bachelor of Education. Consequently no writ for the declaration Patna High Court CWJC No.212 of 2013 (3) dt.28-01-2013 34 of the result can possibly issue. Both the writ petitions are hereby dismissed but in view of the fact that the case involves poor students who may have been inveigled into joining the unrecognized and unaffiliated institution, there shall be no order as to costs.” 27. In view of my aforementioned discussions both on facts and in law I am not at present inclined to issue any direction for publication of result of 2010 Supplementary Examination of left over students of the petitioner‟s school but then keeping in view the stand which has been taken by respondent no.7 in the counter affidavit itself that an enquiry is going on, the Board is under obligation to take a final decision in respect of each and every student, beyond 30 of them whose result of 2010 Supplementary Examination has been declared and also communicate the same to the Headmaster of the school petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. The Board will also be required to record reasons in brief for not declaring the result of such students of the petitioner school who had appeared in 2010 Supplemetnary Examination so that such students may know their fate and futurre and may take appropriate steps Patna High Court CWJC No.212 of 2013 (3) dt.28-01-2013 35 for passing out their Matriculation Examination after becoming eligible in terms of the Board‟s Regulation. 28. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this application is disposed of. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)