IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10012 of 2007 SATISH KUMAR PANDEY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr.Bipin Bihari Singh,Adv. For the State : Mr.Lakmesh Marvind,J.C. to S.C.20 For the N.C.T.E : Mr.S.N.Pathak,Adv. --------- 2. 19/08/2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. In this writ application, the petitioner, a student of Mirza Galib Shikshak Prashikshan Sansthan , Tazpur Bagauni in the district of Samastipur, has prayed for a direction to the authorities concerned to give similar treatment to the petitioner’s Institution and grant same and similar benefit to the petitioner as was granted to Fakruddin Ali Ahmad Memorial Physical Training College, Ramnagar taking into consideration the future of the petitioner as well as the right conferred under Article 14 of the Constitution of India which deals with the right of equity before law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was a student of the Institution in question of the Sessions 1986-88. He completed the training course and appeared in - 2 - the examination held in 1991 but his result was not published. Along with the writ application, an order of a Division Bench of this Court dated 11.9.1990 passed in C.W.J.C.No.5485 of 1990 has been annexed as Annexure-1. From the said order it appears that the Trust managing this particular Institution had moved this Court for a direction to the respondents to allow the students of the Institution to appear in the examination and publish their result. After considering the case of the petitioner’s Institution in detail, this Court permitted the students of the Sessions 1985-87, 1986-88 and 1987-89 to appear in the Primary Teachers Training Examination and the Board was directed to accept their fees and forms. However, it was observed that the result of the said examination shall be subject to recognition of the Institution by the State Government as it was found that the Institution had not got recognition for those Sessions. It was specifically laid down in the order that “Their result shall not be published until the question of recognition of this institution is finally decided by the State Government one way or the - 3 - other”. It was further observed that “their result shall be published only in case recognition is accorded to the institution”. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the students of the Institution had appeared in the examination, may be under the orders of this Court, equity demands that their result should be published and the respondents should be directed to grant conditional recognition to the Institution for publication of result of the students, who had actually appeared in the examination pursuant to the order of this Court. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the orders passed by Division Bench of this Court, as contained in Annexures-2 and 3 in respect of different Institutions. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to notification of the State Government, as contained in Annexure-6, from which it is evident that for the purpose of publication of result of Session 1985-86 of Fakruddin Ali Memorial Physical Training College, Ramnagar, the State Government had granted temporary recognition to it. Learned - 4 - counsel for the petitioner has also referred to paper notice enclosed with Annexure-6, where another Institution was granted temporary recognition for the purpose of publication of result. Relying upon those documents, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents should be directed to grant conditional recognition to the Institution for the above three Sessions for publication of the result of the students of those Sessions, who had appeared in the examination. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of the orders of this Court, contained in Annexures-2 and 3, same equitable principle should be applied in the case of the students of this Institution also, who had appeared in the examination. This Court would have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the lethargic attitude of the respondents in deciding the question of recognition, this Court would have directed them to publish the result of the students of the Institution, but for the reason that by Annexure-1 the Division Bench of this Court, - 5 - while dealing with the case of this particular Institution in question, had put an embargo to publish the result of the students, who were allowed to appear in the examination by the Court. It is an admitted position that had the Division Bench not allowed the students of Sessions 1985-87, 1986-88 and 1987-89 to appear in the examination, the petitioner and other students of the Institution would not have been permitted to appear in the examination. Since they availed the benefit of appearing in the examination by virtue of order of this Court, as contained in Annexure-1, the terms and conditions laid down therein shall equally bind them with full force. Since the order permitting them to appear in the examination clearly prohibits the respondents from publication of the result till final decision is taken by the State Government with regard to recognition of the Institution, and respondents were restrained from publishing the result unless and until Institution was granted permission, it is not possible for this Court to issue any positive direction to the respondents for publication of the result. Since the judgment of the Division - 6 - Bench putting that embargo comes directly in the way of the petitioner and the Institution of which he belongs, equitable principle as claimed by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be applied in this case. However, order of this Court in the case of this Institution was passed on 11.9.1990 but there is nothing on record to show that the matter with regard to recognition of the Institution has been decided by the respondents either way. Therefore, in the light of the said order of the Division Bench, as contained in Annexure-1, it is expected that the respondents shall decide the matter of recognition of the Institution either way and if recognition is granted to the Institution in question- provisional, Temporary or conditional, petitioner and other students shall be at liberty to move the authorities for publication of the result but not otherwise. In the circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ application and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pradeep/ (J. N. Singh, J.)