IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12496 of 2008 AMBIKA MANDAL & ORS ……. Petitioners Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ……. Respondents. ----------- CWJC No.12535 of 2008 SURENDRA BHARTIYA & ORS …….. Petitioners Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ……… Respondents. ----------- CWJC No.15587 of 2008 AMRENDRA KUMAR SINGH …… Petitioners Versus BABA SAHEB BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR BIHAR UNIV. & ORS… Respdts. ----------- CWJC No.20 of 2009 SACHIDANAND MANDAL ……. Petitioners Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS …….. Respondents. ----------- CWJC No.16429 of 2008 RAMA PRASAD SINGH & ORS ……. Petitioners Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ……. Respondents. ----------- CWJC No.15860 of 2008 NARESH PRASAD SINGH & ORS …….Petitioners Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ……. Respondents. ----------- (In CWJC No. 12496/2008 & CWJC No. 12535 of 2008) For the Petitioners:- M/s Rajendra Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate with Rajiv Kr. Singh and Nawal Kishore Singh. For the University:- Mr. Amber Nath Banerjee, Advocate. (In CWJC No. 15587/2008) For the Petitioners:- Mr. Bipin Kumar, Advocate. For the University:- Mr. Aajay Behari Sinha. For the State:- Mr. Bhaskar Shankar, A.C to G.P. XII. (In CWJC No. 20/2009) For the Petitioners:- Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra, Mr. Dhananjay Kr. Gupta and Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocates. For the State:- Mr. Mithilesh Kr. Pathak, SC 17. For the University:- Mr. Ajay Bihari Sinha. - 2 - (In CWJC No. 16429/2008) For the Petitioners:- Mr. Devendra Kr. Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anil Kr. Singh No. 1, and Mr. Abhinay Raj, Advocates. For the State:- Mr. Mayank Rukhaiyar, A.C. G.A. V. (In CWJC No. 15860/2008) For the Petitioners:- Mr. Sanjiv Krishna Bariar and Mr. R.k. Bariar, Advocates. For the University:- Mr. Ajay Bihari Sinha, Advocate. For the State:- Mr. Braj Kishore Singh, JC to S.C. 12. ****** 3. 22.01.2009. Heard learned counsels for the petitioners, for the State and learned counsel for the B.R.A. Bihar University. Admissions were granted in the Government Teachers Training College, Turki, Muzaffarpur for the B.Ed. Course for the Session 1983-1984. The examinations for the course were conducted in 1987. CWJC No. 373 of 1987 was instituted for publication of results. Issues were raised of the genuineness of admissions and constitution of an Enquiry Committee. No report of the Committee was placed before the Court. The State contended that a copy of the report shall be forwarded to the University for publication of results of eligible candidates. It was noticed that the total number of candidates, who appeared at the examination, was 328. This Court, therefore, directed the University to publish the result of the candidates within the time prescribed. Liberty was further granted that, if as per the reports, any of the petitioners therein were not genuine candidates; the University was not obliged to publish their results. Non-publication of the results led to institution of a Contempt Application (MJC No. 603 of 1989). Disposing of the - 3 - contempt matter on 8.8.1990, this Court concluded that on facts it was difficult to hold any flouting of the orders of the Court. It was, however, directed that the State should make all out efforts by an impartial enquiry as to whether some of the writ petitioners at least are genuine or not inasmuch as it was the bounden duty of the University to publish their results. The State Government thereafter published a Notice on 5.9.1991 under the signature of the Special Director (Primary Education) requiring those, who had attended the Course for the Session 1983-1984, to appear before him with relevant documents in support of their claim for being genuine candidates. The factum, authority and jurisdiction of this Enquiry Committee are not in controversy in between the parties at all. Then followed an enquiry report of this One Man Committee dated 7.2.1992. The State Government on 24.3.1999 then referred the matter to the Vigilance for enquiry. This has remained inconclusive till now. Learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that the issue of genuine candidates has already been examined by the One Man Committee. It has segregated the legal and illegal admissions. There was no justification for the respondents to withhold the publication of results of those found to be in the category of genuine candidates. A Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 5035 of 2006 by the order dated 27.9.2006 has directed the publication of result of the petitioners therein and which has been done. Learned counsel for the State urged that the State - 4 - Government not satisfied with the One Man Enquiry Report referred the matter to the Vigilance. He, however, fairly conceded from the letter dated 24.3.1999 that the One Man Enquiry Report dated 7.2.1992 was not rejected by the State Government, that the Enquiry Committee was constituted by the State Government and did not lack jurisdiction. Learned counsel fairly acknowledged that the matter has remained pending with the Vigilance since 1999 till date. He urged that this was on account of non-availability of documents with regard to the admissions. The order in CWJC No. 5035 of 2006 came to be passed in absence of any counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the Bihar University opposed the applications to submit that there was a serious controversy with regard to the genuineness of the students, who may have been granted admission and completed the course and no orders for publication of results for such candidates could be made when the vigilance enquiry has remained inconclusive for reasons of non-availability of documents. The common submission made on behalf of the respondents was one of delay in moving the Court for publication of results. This Court considers it proper to take up the issue of delay first, as if the respondents succeeded on that issue, there is no need for the Court to proceed further for deciding the controversy. It has been noticed above that the controversy has originated since 1987 with regard to a Government Institution and not with regard to an Institution whose identity, recognition and qualifications were in - 5 - dispute. The controversy has traveled through 1989 till 1992 when it has been put in cold storage of the State Government itself. The issue is not with regard to fault finding for a stalemate in the vigilance enquiry but a matter of fact that the enquiry report dated 7.2.1992 has attained finality inasmuch as it has not been rejected. To this Court, therefore, the issue of delay loses its significance. That the petitioners may not have come to this Court earlier, is not of much relevance in the entire facts and circumstances of the case as their cases are adequately the subject matter of the Enquiry Report dated 7.2.1992. The objection with regard to delay is, therefore, rejected. The submission of the learned counsel for the State that referring the matter to the Vigilance, seven years after the submission of the Enquiry Report, was suggestive of non-acceptance of the report of the One Man Enquiry Committee cannot be accepted by this Court. What the Government intended is not to be examined on suppositions ten years later, but by the language used in the order. The order dated 24.3.1999 does not mention the rejection of the One Man Enquiry Report dated 7.2.1992 as the reason for referring the matter to the Vigilance. The Government can institute one enquiry after another till a report to its satisfaction is finally submitted. To the Court, that is not relevant. If there is a report, which the Government does not disown or challenge, much less raise any controversy about, it cannot simultaneously accept the report and reject the report. The University in the entire controversy has a very limited role to play. The University cannot be permitted to take shelter - 6 - behind any orders of the State Government for a vigilance enquiry when the directions of this Court earlier were to act in accordance with the report to be sent to it by the State Government of the genuine candidates for publication of results. The University is, therefore, required to act on such report that may be sent to it by the State Government without furthermore unless the University wishes from the report to bring any aspect of the matter to the attention of the State Government. This Court has no hesitation in holding that the matters have to reach finality and cannot be left in the lurch by the State Government in the manner done. There is no further report of the Vigilance or any other authority. The One Man Enquiry Report dated 7.2.1992 subsists. The genuineness and validity of the same is not in controversy. The State Government is directed to forward the names of the genuine candidates as per the One Man Enquiry Committee Report dated 7.2.1992 to the University, which shall then publish their results unless the University finds any error in the recommendation when it can refer to the State Government for clarification. Keeping in mind the passage of time, this Court does consider it proper to leave it to the State Government to decide the modality for identification of those claiming to be covered by the report dated 7.2.1992. Let such an exercise be completed and the results be published within a period of six months from the date of receipt and / - 7 - or presentation of a copy of this order. The writ applications stand allowed to the extent indicated above. Let a copy of this order be made available to the counsel for the State expeditiously on payment of necessary costs. dk ( Navin Sinha, J. )