ORDER
1. In this application the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a direction upon the Bihar School Examination Board to publish the results of the students of the petitioner No. 1 College for the Sessions 1983-85, 1984-86 and 1985-87.
2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass.
3. The petitioner No. 1 is an institution established for imparting training to Primary School Teachers. The said school was established in the year 1979.
4. The permission was sought for from the respondent No. 1 by the petitioner so that the students of the said institution who have been given training may appear at the examination.
5. The petitioners in that connection filed a writ application in this court being CWJC No. 4863 of 1985, but this court did not permit the students to appear in the examination for the Sessions 1983-85.
6. The petitioners thereafter moved the Supreme Court of India in S.L.P. (C) No. 6890 of 1986 and by an order dated 18-7-1986 the students of the petitioner’s Institution was permitted to appear at the examination. In the year 1987 the petitioners again prayed for permission of the respondent or allow its students to appear at the examination for the Sessions 1984-86 and 1985-87 and for that purpose the petitioners again filed a writ application in this court being CWJC No, 4863 of 1985 and by an order dated 22-5-
1987 this court refused to grant such permission.
7. The petitioner again filed an application for grant of Special Leave to Appeal in the Supreme Court of India being SLP No. 7433 of 1987 and by an order dated 23-7-1987 the Supreme Court directed that those students who fulfilled all the requisite qualifications may be permitted to appear in the final examination for the Sessions 1984-86 and 1985-87 but their results were not to be published until further orders. The said order is contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application.
8. In the aforementioned CWJC No. 4863 of 1985 the petitioners also filed a supplementary application praying therein for issuance of an appropriate writ quashing an order of the Joint Secretary whereby the petitioner’s application for affiliation was rejected. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 27-4-1988. The decision of this court in the aforementioned case is reported in 1989 BUR 457.
9. The aforementioned SLP bearing No. 7432 of 1987 was placed before the Supreme Court of India along with SLP No. 7432 of 1982 on 8-11-1990 and by an order dated 8-11-1990 the Supreme Court wanted to know as to what steps had been taken by the State Government pursuant to the order of the High Court. The said matter was thereafter placed before the Supreme Court of India on 29-11-90 and the said application for grant of special leave was dismissed stating:–
“This special leave petition was made against the order No. 25 dated 22nd May, 1987 on the question of granting interim relief, namely to allow the petitioner of those institutions to appear in the examination in respect of students of 1984-1986 session and 1985-87? session. This court after hearing the parties passed an order to the effect that the students who have fulfilled the requisite qualifications will he permitted to appear in the examination but their results will not be published until further orders of this Court. In the meantime, however, the High Court
allowed the writ petition with certain directions and the State has refused to grant recognition to this institution on certain grounds mentioned in the order. Therefore, in such circumstances this court is unable to enter into the question whether the order of refusing recognition is good or bad because it is totally not within the scope of the Special leave petition. In that view of the matter, we dismiss the S.L.P.
The petitioner, if aggrieved by the order may challenge the case in an appropriate forum in accordance with law.”
10. The petitioners have stated that in another case being Civil Appeal No. 3657 of 1987, the Supreme Court permitted the students of the institution in question to appear at the examination. The petitioners have further contended that a Division Bench of this court in CWJC No. 533 of 1992 (Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar) have also directed publication of the result of the petitioners therein. (Annexure-5).
11. Dr. Sadanand Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised a short question in support of this application.
The learned counsel submitted that in view of the fact that in a similar situation the Supreme Court as also this court had directed publication of the result, by reason of Annexures 4 to 5, this court also should direct publication of the result of the students of the petitioner No. 1 following the decisions of the Supreme Court as also the decision of this court as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application.
12. It is admitted that prayer of affiliation sought for by the petitioner has been rejected by the State of Bihar. In this writ application, the said order has not been questioned. It is also not in dispute that in view of the order rejecting the application for grant of affiliation of the petitioner No. 1’s Institution, its students had no legal right to appear at the examination nor have they any right to get their results published.
13. This aspect of the matter is fully
covered by a decision of the Supreme Court in A.P.C.M.E. Society v. Government of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1986 SC 1490 and State of Tamil Nadu v. St. Joseph Teachers Training Institute reported in 1991 (3) SCC 87.
14. A Full Bench of this court has also considered the aspect of the matter In Amarendra Pratap Singh v. Lalit Narain Mithila University reported in 1987 BLJR 590 : (AIR 1987 Pat 259) as also in Rahmania Primary Teachers Training College v. State of Bihar reported in 1991 (1) PLJR 595 : (AIR 1992 Patna 1).
15. This court while considering law laid down by the Supreme Court of India has to bear in mind the distinction between a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India an order passed by the Supreme Court in the facts and circumstances of the case before it in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 thereof.
In terms of Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court is entitled to pass any order so as to do complete justice between the parties before it. This court in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India however is not entitled to do so.
16. On a recent decision, in Slate of Punjab v. Surinder Kumar reported in 1992 (1) SCC 489 : (AIR 1992 SC 1593) it has been held by the Supreme Court (as page 1594) :—
“A decision is available as a precedent only if it decides a question of law. The respondents are, therefore, not entitled to rely upon an order of this court which directs a temporary employee to be regularised in his service without assigning reasons. It has to he presumed that for special ground which must have been available to the temporary employees in those cases, they were entitled to the relief granted. Merely because grounds are not mentioned in a judgment of this court, it cannot be understood to have passed without an adequate legal basis there for. Or. the question of the requirement to assign reasons for an order, a distinction has to be kept in
mind between a court whose judgment is not subject to further appeal and other courts. One of the main reasons for disclosing and discussing the grounds in support of a judgment is to enable a higher court to examine the same in case of a challenge. It is, of course, desirable to assign reasons for every order or judgment, but the requirement is not imperative in the case of this court. It is, therfore, futile to suggest that if this court has issued an order which apparently seems to be similar to the impugned order, the High Court can also do so. There is still another reason why the High court cannot be equated with this court. The constitution has, by Article 142 empowered the Supreme court to make such orders as may be necessary “for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it” which authority the High Court does not enjoy. The jurisdiction of the High Court, while dealing with a writ petition, is circumscribed by the limitation discussed and declared by the judicial decisions, and it cannot transgress the limits on the basis of whims or subjective sense of justice varying from Judge to Judge.”
17. This aspect of the matter has also recently been considered by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Maulana Mazharul Haque Primary Teachers Training College v. Statt of Bihar reported in 1992 (1) BLJ 712.
18. In, view of the aforementioned authoritative prononcement of this court as also the Supreme Court of India, it is not possible for us to grant any relief to the petitioners as we are bound by the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India as also the binding
precedents aforementioned. This application is, therefore, dismissed.