IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.156 of 2010
1. Kant Lal Choudhary S/O Sri Muni Lal Choudhary R/O Vill-
Dhouni, P.S- Rajoun, Distt- Banka
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Secretary, Science And Technology Deptt. Govt.Of Bihar,
Patna
3. The Director, State Technical Education Board, Science
Technology Deptt. Govt. Of Bihar, Patna
4. The Principal, Govt. Polytechnic, Bhagalpur
5. The Controller Of Examination State Board Of Technical
Education, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna
-----------
3. 30.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner,
the State, who also represents the Principal,
Government Polytechnic (hereinafter referred to as
„the Polytechnic‟), Bhagalpur and the Controller of
Examination State Board of Technical Education,
Government of Bihar (hereinafter referred to as the
„Examination Board‟).
The petitioner desires the publication
/release of his 3rd year mark sheet as also the
certificate for completion of the three year course of
Diploma in Civil Engineering attended by him at the
Polytechnic. The third year examination during the
Session 1989-90 was held in April, 1991. His
second year mark sheet is stated to have been
furnished to him in the year 1995.
Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that he was admitted in the course during
the Session 1984-85. He has passed the first and
2
second year examination of the course and has also
passed the third year examination but his result has
not been published. The representations evoked no
response till he received a communication dated
4.7.2008 declining publication of the result for
reasons mentioned therein. C.W.J.C. No. 2262 of
2008 was disposed with directions to consider his
representation leading to the impugned order dated
16.10.2009 declining to publish his results.
Learned counsel for the Examination
Board from the counter affidavit as also the original
records with him submitted that the petitioner had
obtained admission by impersonation. The
photograph of the candidate has been changed in
the admission form and the signature in the
admission form also varied which has been
confirmed by a forensic report. The results of those
cleared by forensic reports have been published. The
petitioner did not pursue matters till he addressed a
letter dated 25.7.2007 to the Polytechnic for
publication of his result. In that also he himself
acknowledged that he had not discharged his
obligations fully as certain papers were still required
to be submitted by him. It was next submitted that
reminders had been sent to the Polytechnic on
3
9.2.1995 and 15.1.2003 asking for necessary
information and materials from the concerned
students notwithstanding which nothing was
received from the petitioner. Referring to the
impugned order dated 16.10.2009 he submits that
at such a belated stage of time nearly 25 years later,
this Court may not give direction for consideration
and publication of the results as the matter had
become stale and the petitioner must bear a part of
the blame also.
The Court cannot loose sight of the fact
that the petitioner has pursued a technical course, a
diploma in Civil Engineering. The course is said to
have been completed. Had the admission been
cancelled during the pendency of the course for any
reason including an alleged impersonation, the
matter would have been entirely different. But once
the course has been completed, the petitioner has
passed the first and second year and also appeared
at the 3rd year examination and claims to have
passed, the considerations shall be entirely different.
Even if this Court were to accept today the
contention of the respondent Examination Board
that admission was secured by impersonation, it
does not detract from the factual position for the
4
completion of the course. It is not the case of the
respondent Examination Board or the Polytechnic
that the petitioner was ineligible for admission as he
did not possess the requisite qualification for
admission to the course of diploma in civil
engineering.
On the own showing of the Examination
Board, notices were issued to the Polytechnic
requiring it to in turn notice the petitioner with
regard to the deficiencies in his admission. At no
point of time was any direct notice issued to the
petitioner before arriving at a final conclusion of
alleged impersonation against him and the
conclusion to withhold his result. The petitioner has
brought on record as Annexure-5 the
communication dated 1.8.2009 by which the
Polytechnic declines receipt of the communications
dated 9.2.1995 and 15.1.2003 from the Examination
Board. However the Court does not consider it
necessary to go into those allegations and counter
allegations.
In (1976) 1 SCC 311 (Shri Krishnan v.
Kurukshetra University) considering a claim for
publication of results denied on grounds of
ineligibility for admission it was held at paragraph 7
5
as follows :-
“7…….In the instant case the
admission form of the appellant must
have been forwarded in December
1971 whereas the examination was to
take place in Apri1/May 1972. It is
obvious that during this period of four
to five months it was the duty of the
university authorities to scrutinise
the form in order to find out whether
it was in order. Equally it was the
duty of the Head of the Department of
Law before submitting the form to the
university to see that the form
complied with all the requirements of
law. If neither the Head of the
Department nor the university
authorities took care to scrutinise the
admission form, then the question of
the appellant committing a fraud did
not arise. It is well settled that where
a person on whom fraud is committed
is in a position to discover the truth
by due diligence, fraud is not proved.
………There was ample time and
opportunity for the university
authorities to have found out the
defect. In these circumstances,
therefore, if the university authorities
acquiesced in the infirmities which
the admission form contained and
allowed the appellant to appear in
Part I examination in April 1972, then
by force of the university statute the
university had no power to withdraw
the candidature of the
appellant……We find ourselves in
complete agreement with the reasons
given by the Madhya Pradesh High
Court and the view of law taken by
the learned Judges. In these
circumstances, therefore, once the
appellant was allowed to appear at
the examination in May 1973, the
respondent had no jurisdiction to
cancel his candidature for that
examination. This was not a case
where on the undertaking given by a
candidate for fulfilment of a specified
6condition a provisional admission was
given by the university to appear at
the examination which could be
withdrawn at any moment on the
non-fulfilment of the aforesaid
condition.”The question again came up for
consideration in (2009) 1 SCC 610 (Guru Nanak Dev
University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal)when it was held
at paragraph 19 as follows :-:
“19….He has, however, also been
permitted to continue the course and
has completed the course in 2007. He
has succeeded before the High Court.
Now after four years, if it is to be held
that he is not entitled to admission,
four years of his career will be
irretrievably lost. In the
circumstances, it will be unfair and
unjust to deny the first respondent the
benefit of admission which was
initially accepted and recognised by
the appellant University.”
Coming to the aspect of delay, it is not an
inflexible rule that a writ petition must be outright
rejected on the ground of delay. It is more a matter
for exercise of discretion by the Court in accordance
with law. It is a self imposed restriction in exercise
of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The discretion
shall therefore necessarily be variable depending on
the facts of the case. If because of the delay, certain
developments have taken place and reversing that
situation may pose great difficulty and may not be
7possible delay may be relevant. If third party rights
have accrued in the meantime delay will be relevant.
The Supreme Court in (2009) 6 SCC 791 (Basanti
Prasad v. Chairman, Bihar School Examination
Board) has held at paragraph 18 as follows:-
“18. In the normal course, we would
not have taken exception to the order
passed by the High Court. They are
justified in saying that a delinquent
employee should not be permitted to
revive the stale claim and the High
Court in exercise of its discretion
would not ordinarily assist the tardy
and indolent person. This is the
traditional view and is well supported
by a plethora of decisions of this
Court. This Court also has taken the
view that there is no inviolable rule,
that, whenever there is delay the
Court must refuse to entertain a
petition…”
In the present case, the matter concerns
academics and the career of a student. No useful
purpose is going to be served by declining
publication of his result in accordance with law only
on the ground of delay. In fact all, the petitioner, the
institution and the society stand to loose the entire
effort put in by way of finance and labour by the
parties. The society shall also loose out the services
of the petitioner as qualified person. The impugned
order dated 16.10.2009 simply states that 25 years
later no reconsideration could be done. Learned
8
counsel for the Board was possessed of the original
records and made submissions from the same
during the course of the proceedings. The order
dated 16.10.2009 is set aside.
Needless to state that if the petitioner is
required to perform certain obligations and furnish
any required information before his result can be
published, the Examination Board is obliged to
inform him of the same no sooner that he appears
before it with a copy of the present order. Directions
are issued to the Principal of Polytechnic at
Bhagalpur that if the examination Board calls for
any information or the petitioner informs the
Principal that the Board has asked for any
information, it shall be the duty of the Principal
under the order of the Court to forthwith furnish
information to the Examination Board. Let the result
of the petitioner be published in accordance with law
within a maximum period of three months from the
date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
The writ application stands allowed.
P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)