IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.19190 of 2010 Mirtyunjay Kumar . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr Ajay Kumar, Advocate For the Board : Mr Vikash Kumar, Advocate ------- 3. 08.07.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Bihar Combined Competitive Entrance Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as „the Board‟). The petitioner appeared at the examination conducted by the Board in 2008 for admission to the ITI in the Session 2008-2010 successfully. He was granted provisional admission and started to attend classes. Subsequently the Board proceeded to examine his handwriting as contained in the answer sheet and the specimen written by him at the stage of counseling. Prima facie satisfied of noticeable discrepancy between the two the Board forwarded the same to the Department of Forensic which has opined that the two do not belong to same person. Consequently the Board gave a show cause notice to the petitioner to which he duly replied. The writ petition was filed at this stage questioning the show cause notice. A writ petition shall not lie against a show cause notice unless it is without jurisdiction or is apparently on the face of it illegal. In the case of Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board Vs. Ramesh Kumar Singh, (1996) 1 SCC 327 it has been held at Para 10 as follows:- “10. We are concerned in this case, with the entertainment of the writ petition against a show cause notice issued by a competent statutory authority. It should be borne in mind that there is no attack against the vires of the statutory provisions governing the matter. No question of infringement of any fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution is alleged or proved. It cannot be said that Ext. P-4 notice is ex facie a „nullity‟ or totally “without jurisdiction” in the traditional sense of that expression – that is to say, that even the commencement or initiation of 2 the proceedings, on the face of it and without anything more, is totally unauthorized. In such a case, for entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against a show-cause notice, at that stage, it should be shown that the authority has no power or jurisdiction, to enter upon the enquiry in question. In all other cases, it is only appropriate that the party should avail of the alternate remedy and show cause against the same before the authority concerned and take up the objection regarding jurisdiction also, then. In the event of an adverse decision, it will certainly be open to him to assail the same either in appeal or revision, as the case may be, or in appropriate cases, by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” The respondents have filed a counter affidavit where they have explained that even in the videography done of the examination hall the petitioner could not be identified. The final order passed in pursuance of the reply to the show cause notice furnished by the petitioner, has been appended at Annexure „E‟ dated 19.8.2010. Counsel for the Board rightly points out that the final order has not been challenged by the petitioner. The Court concurs with the submissions on behalf of the Board that even according to naked perusal of the two handwritings, as noticed above, appear to bear dissimilarities of a nature which this Court finds difficult to interfere with in exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction. The writ application is accordingly dismissed with like observations as contained in CWJC No. 4093 of 2010. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)