IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9886 of 2009 1. SARITA OJHA D/O SACHIDA NAND OJHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHABRA, P.S. SADAR DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR. 2. AMRIT VERSA D/O ANIL KUMAR, RESIDENT OF BARAIYA, P.S.AHIYAPUR, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR. 3. BIBHA KUMARI, D/O BIADYANATH SHAHI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAHBAJPUR, P.O. BHIKHANPUR, P.S. AHIYAPUR, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR. 4. RUBI KUMARI D/O ANIL KUMAR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MANO RAMPUR P.S. SURAJGARHA, DISTRICT LAKHISARAI. 5. ANITA KUMARI D/O ASHOK KUMAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BALAHPUR, P.S. MATIHANI, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI. 6. SEEMA KUMARI, D/O RAM SAIJAN SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAGANPUR, P.S. GORAUL, DISTRICT VAISHALI. 7. SHAKUNTALA GOSWAMI, D/O RAM BALAK GOSWAMI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAHADDI NAGAR, P.O. JASAULI PAKRI, P.S. JASAULI(O.P.) DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR. 8. SOBHA KUMARI, D/O SURESH SHARMA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SIRNATH FORM, P.S. PUSA DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR----PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DY. SECRETARY, YOUTH SPORTS AND CULTURE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, YOUTH SPORTS AND CULTURE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DY. DIRECTOR, YOUTH SPORTS AND CULTURE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, BIHAR, PATNA. 6. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD, PATNA----RESPONDENTS. For the Petitioners : M/S Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr.Adv. Nirmal Kr. Sinha, Arun Kumar, Advocates. For the State : Mr. GP-21, Advocate. For the B.S.E.B. : Mr. Sunil Kr. Mandal, Advocate. ----------- 03. 19.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and the counsel for the Bihar School Examination Board(hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) 2. Petitioners were the students of Physical Training Course in Kamla Nehru Women’s Physical Education Training College, Bairia, Muzaffarpur(hereinafter referred to as “the College”) for the sessions 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98. They have filed this writ application for a direction to the Board to allow them to appear in the Physical Training Examination(hereinafter referred to as “the Examination”) conducted by the Board as in spite of having completed the course they are not - 2 - being permitted to appear in the examination. In this connection, it is pointed out that the authorities of the College earlier requested the Board and the State Government to ensure appearance of the petitioners in the examination but the authorities of the Board and the Government did not permit the petitioners to appear in the examination and the present writ application has been filed after the Government informed the President of the College under instructions contained in letter No. 695 dated 18.5.2007, Annexure-3 that the recognition granted by the State Government to the College was not extended beyond the year 2004. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as the Government and the Board kept the matter pending until issue of letter No. 695 dated 18.5.2007, Annexure-3 the President and students of the College could not move before this Court earlier. Such instructions having been issued on 18.5.2007, petitioners have no option but to approach this Court. 4. Counsel for the Board has opposed the prayer. He states that the students completed the course about ten years earlier and they are filing this writ application belatedly, as such this Court should not interfere in the matter as petitioners were admitted in the College beyond the intake capacity and considering their illegal admission in the College, the authorities of the Board never permitted the petitioners to appear in the examination and when the authorities of the Board did not admit the petitioners to appear in the examination for about ten years at this belated stage, this Court should not entertain - 3 - this writ application. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties as also having found that petitioners completed the course about ten years earlier and have filed this writ application so belatedly this Court does not deem it expedient to direct the Board to let the petitioner appear in the examination and accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.)