IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.3786 of 2010
1. ABHISHEK KUMAR S/O SRI SANT KUMAR R/O VILL.- PARAIYA
KHURD, P.O. AND P.S.- PARAIYA, DISTT.- GAYA
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DIRECTOR
EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, BIHAR, PATNA
2. EXAMINATION CONTROLLER, I.T.I. DIGHAGHAT, PATNA
3. PRINCIPAL I.T.I. DEHRI-ON-SONE, ROHTAS
-----------
For the petitioner :- Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Upadhyay, Adv.
For the State:- Mr. Pawan Kumar A.C. to G.P. 14
————-
2. 17.9.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and the State.
The petitioner seeks the declaration of his
final result of the I.T.I. training course completed in
2002.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
mark sheet showing him as pass has been issued on
5.9.2003.
Counsel for the respondent submits that
the eligibility for admission was matriculate in first
class. The petitioner was not eligible for admission in
the course being matriculate second class. The result
therefore cannot be published, the admission being
wrong.
The argument of the respondents stands
best answered by the judgment of the Supreme Court
in AIR 1990 SUPREME COURT 1075 “Sanatan Gauda
v. Berhampur University” holding at Paragraph no.10
as follows:-
“10. This is apart from the
fact that I find that in the present case
the appellant while securing his
admission in the Law College had
admittedly submitted his mark-sheet
along with the application for admission.
The Law College had admitted him. He
had pursued his studies for two years.
The University had also granted him the
admission card for the Pre-Law and
Intermediate Law examinations. He was
permitted to appear in the said
examinations. He was also admitted to
the final year of the course. It is only at
the stage of the declaration of his results
of the Pre-Law and Inter-Law
examinations that the University raised
the objection to his so-called ineligibility
to be admitted to the Law course. The
University is, therefore, clearly estoped
from refusing to declare the results of
the appellant’s examination or from
preventing him from pursuing his final
year course.”
Let the respondents publish the final result of
the petitioner within a maximum period of two weeks
from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this
order.
The writ application stands allowed.
P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)
