IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO. 9627 of 2010
===================================================
Sanjay Kumar s/o Surendra Pd. Singh, r/o village - Sirsa, P.S. -
Muffasil Motihari, District - East Champaran, Motihari .. Petitioner
Versus
1. Bihar School Examination Board through the Secretary, Budh Marg,
Patna
2. Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Bihar, Patna
3. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari
4. Harendra Kumar Singh, Secretary, r/o Mohalla Chandmari, P.S.
Motihari Town, East Champaran, Motihari
5. Arbind Kumar Singh, In-charge Principal, presently residing in the
Campus of Anugrah Narain Singh College, East Champaran,
Motihari
6. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Human
Resources, Govt. of Bihar, Patna .......... Respondents
==================================================
APPEARANCE
For the Petitioner : Mr. H.S. Himkar, Advocate
Mr. A.Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent nos. 4 & 5: Mr.Tej Bahadur Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Ram Kishore Singh, Advocate
For the B.S.E.Board : Mr. Purnendu Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Harendra Pd. Singh, GA
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, AC to GA
===================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
And
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
7 30/9/2010 Heard the learned advocates.
With the consent of the learned advocates, the
petition is heard and decided today.
The petitioner, a resident of village- Sirsa, Police
Station – Muffasil Motihari, District – East Champaran, is
a social and political worker. The petitioner has brought
this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in public
interest. It is the complaint of the petitioner that the
2
respondent no.1 – the Bihar School Examination Board
(hereinafter referred to as „the Board‟) and its Chairman,
respondent no.2, have committed illegality in giving the
Code number to the respondent no.5 Sri Anugrah Narain
Singh College, East Champaran at Motihari (hereinafter
referred to as „the College‟) though it was derecognized
as early as in the year 2004.
The learned advocate Mr. H.S. Himkar has
appeared for the petitioner. He has relied upon the
communication dated 14th May 2004 addressed by the then
Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna to the College.
Under the said communication, the College was informed
that the College had failed to satisfy the terms and
conditions of the temporary recognition such as, the
College did not have its own land, the building of the
College taken on lease for 30 years was dilapidated; and
the College did not have a laboratory or a library. The
temporary recognition granted to the College was,
therefore, cancelled for the said reasons in the interest of
education and the students.
The petitioner has alleged that since the
cancellation of the recognition, no fresh recognition has
been granted to the College, nevertheless the College has
been granted the Code number under communication
dated 31st July 2008, meaning thereby that the students
admitted by the College are permitted to take the Board
examination.
In answer to the notice issued by this Court, the
respondents have entered appearance and have contested
3
the petition.
The Board has appeared through the learned
advocate Mr. Purnendu singh. He has submitted that the
Bihar Intermediate Education Council Act, 1992 has been
repealed under the Bihar Intermediate education Council
Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the Repeal Act”). It
may, however, be noted that under section 7 of the Repeal
Act, any act done or any action taken under the Bihar
Intermediate Education Council Act, 1992 has been saved.
Thus, in our view, the cancellation of the temporary
recognition of the College continues to be in force in
spite of the Repeal Act. The learned advocate has also
relied on the resolution dated 13th May 2008 passed by the
Bihar School Examination Board, Patna. He has
submitted that under the said resolution the Board had
decided to allow the students of the institutions to take the
Board examination. It was pursuant to the said resolution
that the impugned action of granting Code number to the
College was taken.
The fallacy in the submission is apparent. The
resolution in question was passed in respect of those
Colleges which were recognized and which had
submitted the list of their students who were to take the
Board examination. Evidently, the said resolution did not
apply to the institutions which were not recognized.
However, taking the shelter under the said resolution, the
College was granted Code number illegally under the
signature of the Deputy Controller of Examination. The
action was depricable and is deprecated. The learned
4
advocate has conceded that the Board has failed to bring
on record any material to establish that since its
derecognition the College did remove the deficiencies and
that it was granted recognition afresh.
The learned advocate Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh has
appeared for the College. He admits that since its
derecognition the College has not been granted
recognition afresh. He has relied upon the inspection
report made by the District Education Officer on 31st
March 2009. He has submitted that though the inspection
report was made as early as on 31st March 2009, till date
the Board has not taken any decision on it. Pending the
decision the Board has permitted the students of the
College to take examination through other institutions.
We may, at the outset, note that the copy of the
inspection report placed before us is incomplete and
hardly discloses any material fact about the College. As
recorded hereinabove, it is an admitted fact that till date
the College has not been given recognition nor it is
affiliated to the Board. The College is thus not entitled to
admit students nor the students are entitled to take the
Board examination. Nevertheless, under the guise of
Code number granted to the College the students are
permitted to take the examination. Thus, the illegality is
perpetuated from year to year. Neither the Board nor the
College has any problem with this makeshift
arrangement.
Learned advocate Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh has
candidly admitted that the College does admit the students
5
and charge the fees but does not inform the students or
their guardians that the College is not recognized or not
affiliated to the Board.
Illegality is writ large. No further evidence or
material is required. Neither of the respondents is in a
position to controvert the aforesaid fact situation.
In above view of the matter, we allow this
petition. The impugned communication dated 31st July
2008 granting Code number to Shri Anugrah Narain Singh
College, East Champaran at Motihari is set aside. Legal
consequences shall follow. It will be the duty of the
respondent Bihar School Examination Board to give wide
publicity to the fact that the above referred Shri Anugrah
Narain Singh College, East Champaran at Motihari is not
recognized nor it is affiliated to the Board. If at all the
application made by the College for recognition/affiliation
is pending before the Board, the Board will consider and
decide the same in accordance with law within two months
from today
The writ petition is allowed to the above extent.
The parties will bear their own cost.
( R. M. Doshit,CJ.)
Neyaz/ ( Jyoti Saran, J.)