IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8478 of 2007 1. Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, Son of Sri Laxmi Narayan Pandey, Resident of Selash, P.S.-Kochas, District-Rohtas. 2. Shashi Prakash, Son of Sri Upendra Kumar, Resident of New Area, Jora Mandir (Press Gali), Dehri-on-Sone, P.S.- Dehri-on-Sone, District-Rohtas. 3. Dhanji Prasad Ram @ Dhanji Prasad, Son of Sri Saryu Ram, Resident of Baradhi, P.S.- Sasaram, District-Rohtas. 4. Bimlesh Ram, Son of Sri Sahrai Ram, Resident of Baliyari, P.S.- Majhiaon Garhwa, District- Garhwa. 5. Prabhu Nath Gupta, Son of Late Ashok Kumar Gupta, Resident of Jamhor (A.N. Road), P.S.- Jamhor, District- Aurangabad. 6. Shashi Kant, Son of Yamuna Pandey, Resident of Barun, P.S.-Barun, District- Aurangabad. 7. Chandan Kumar, Son of Late Ram Newaj Singh, Resident of village- Bhatauli, P.S.- Sandesh, District- Bhojpur at Ara. 8. Sanjay Kumar, Son of Kishun Deo Ram, Resident of village- Bajitpur, Benjari, P.S.-Rohtas, District- Rohtas. ………Petitioners. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar through the Director, Employment and Training, Bihar, Patna. 2. Examination Controller, I.T.I., Dighaghat, Patna. 3. Principal, I.T.I., Dehri-on-Sone, Rohtas. …… Respondents. ----------- 05 05.03.2009 Petitioners are student of various batches of ITI, Dehri- on-Sone and Gaya. They had got their admissions in the ITI and had undertaken the Industrial Training Vocational Course examination but their results were not being published. The eight petitioners have thus approached to this Court. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that result of petitioner nos. 1, 2, 4 and 8 had been published. Thus, their grievances have been met. So far as petitioner nos. 3 and 7 is concerned, it is said 2 that petitioner no. 3 had not deposited caution money and petitioner no. 7 had not filled up registration form. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that no sooner these formalities are completed, their results would be declared. Petitioner no. 3 has annexed a receipt showing deposit of caution money. He may bring to the notice of the authority and even when the authorities are not satisfied with that, they would grant an opportunity to petitioner to deposit afresh. Similar would be with petitioner no. 7. He would fill up registration form afresh and on petitioners doing the same, their results would be declared. So far as petitioner nos. 5 and 6 are concerned, the only reason for withholding their results is that they had passed matriculation examination with second division and as yet second division matriculate have not been admitted. Learned counsel for petitioners has drawn my attention to the admission of other students who were admitted with lesser marks. He further refers to Annexure-A to the counter affidavit to show that what to talk of second division, even as per Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, third division pass students were also admitted. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that it was for the authorities to admit or not to admit petitioners. Petitioners applied and were admitted. They persuaded the course, gave the examinations and hopefully have succeeded. At this late stage, the question of entry at initial level should not be raised. It is not a case where petitioners mislead the authorities into taking admission. Authorities took admission with their eyes open. Now it is too late to make a complaint about that. I, therefore, hold that that the results of petitioner nos. 5 3 and 6 have to be declared. It is expected that the results would be declared forthwith. With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)