IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 15254 of 2007 Kalpana Kumari, D/o Chandra Bhushan Prasad Singh, R/o village - Dighikala, P S - Hajipur, District - Vaishali - Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Bihar through Secretary, Higher Education, Bihar, Patna 2 The Vice Chancellor, Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Muzaffarpur 3 The Examination Controller, Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Muzaffarpur 4 The Principal, Raj Narayan College, Vaishali at Hajipur under capacity of Centre Superintendent - Respondents W I T H CWJC No 98 of 2008 Sharita Kumari, D/o Deo Nandan Singh, R/o Mohalla - Andar Kila, P S - Hajipur, District - Vaishali - Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Higher Education, Bihar, Patna 2 The Vice Chancellor, Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Muzaffarpur 3 The Examination Controller, Bhim Rao Ambedkar, University, Muzaffarpur 4 The Principal, Raj Narayan College, Vaishali at Hajipur under capacity of Centre Superintendent - Respondents ----------- 4 12.11.2008 In both these cases, the petitioners want publication of their results of B A Part II (Honours) Examination, 2006 and consequently to be permitted to appear in B A Part III (Honours) Examination. Petitioners had appeared for BA Part II (Honours) Examination. They were allowed to appear in all the papers but their results were not declared. When they made enquiry, they have been told that their results have been cancelled allegedly on grounds of using unfairmeans and further they have been restricted/debarred from appearing in examination for next three years under the B R Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. On behalf of petitioners, it is submitted that if petitioners had used unfairmeans in any particular paper then the invigilator should have reported the matter and petitioners restricted from appearing in further papers. This was not done rather petitioners 2 were permitted to give all the papers and subsequently a decision was taken, as noted above. He further submits that before such a decision was taken; the petitioners were not even noticed much less given any chance to offer any explanation whatsoever. It is submitted that in view of both the aforesaid, the decision of the University is rendered non est and unsustainable. For this purpose, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of this Court in CWJC No 10211 of 2007 (Rupashree Sinha -Versus- State of Bihar & Others) disposed of on 30.04.2008. The facts of that case are identical. That writ petition was allowed even without remitting the matter to the University for fresh enquiry and the University was directed to declare the results accordingly. The University, being aggrieved by judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge, preferred a Letters Patent Appeal being Letters Patent Appeal No 448 of 2008 which was again dismissed in limine by Division Bench order dated 11th of August 2008 affirming the order of the Hon’ble Single Judge. Nothing has been shown or urged contrary to the facts, as noted above. In view of the aforesaid, the decision cannot be sustained. It is, accordingly, held to be non est. I, accordingly, direct that the results of the petitioners of B A Part II (Honours) Examination, 2006 be published forthwith and further the petitioners be permitted to appear in the ensuing examinations which, this Court is informed, are to begin from 14th of this month. The learned counsel for the University would ensure the same by communicating with the Controller of Examinations of the concerned University. I may only mention that while adjourning 3 the matter on the 30th of September 2008, observation of this Court had been made in like manner. The writ petitions are, thus, allowed. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)