IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12625 of 2008 SHIWANI SINGH & ORS Versus CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY.EDUCATION ----------- For the Petitioners : M/s N.K.Agrawal, Sr.Advocate Pathak Dhanjay Kumar, Advocate For the CBSE : Mr Vinay Krishna Tripathy, Advocate ------------ 3 22 .9.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the Central Board of Secondary Education. The petitioners, who are 35 in number, have admittedly been issued with Admit Cards by the respondent Board on the basis of registration forms and fees and list of candidates submitted by Brilliant Public School or somebody acting on its behalf. That Brilliant Public School having the address of BPS Nagar, Nizamuddinpur, Jehanabad-804408 has not been made a party to this writ petition. The grievance of the petitioners is that although they were permitted to take the Class X Examination conducted by the Board in March 2008, their results were not published and no intimation was given to the petitioners for such action. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Board which discloses disturbing facts. It appears that initially only 108 students were included in the list of candidates given by the school in question and it was on the basis of 110 2 registration forms sent to that school but later in a clandestine manner 79 other candidates were included among the second list of candidates submitted on behalf of the school without any forwarding letter and the fees were also deposited. The Board came to smell a foul play in January 2008 itself as appears from Annexure-B and the school authorities thereafter took the stand that they had nothing to do with the second list of candidates consisting of 79 students including 35 petitioners. On that basis half hearted steps were taken by the Board as well as by the school and that led to a letter from the Controller of Examination of the Board on 1st March, 2008 (Annexure-H) whereby the Board decided to permit 79 candidates bearing Roll No.5111498 to 5111576 to appear in the Examination of 2008 subject to verification of their credentials/ school records before publication of results. Ultimately, as appears from Annexure-N dated 1st July, 2008, on verification of records it was found that those 79 persons had not been sponsored for Class X 2008 Examination by any school affiliated to the Board. In counter affidavit it has been submitted that the addresses given by 79 candidates were incorrect and all the letters issued to different candidates including petitioner no.14 Md. Masoom Alam which has been enclosed as Annexure-N 3 returned back with endorsement by the postal staff that the addressee was not found at those addresses. On verification it is found that petitioner no.14 has also given a different address in the writ petition. The petitioners and some others similarly situated persons have been made victim of fraud as is clear from the materials on record. They have lost valuable time because of delay on the part of the Board in taking action in the matter. Such candidates should not have been permitted to take the examination at appropriate stage and there should have been a public notice or publication declaring their Admit Cards to be invalid. This was not done either by the respondent Board or by the concerned school. That confirms the suspicion of this Court that there were persons involved in the fraud both at the level of the school and the Board and if the fraud had succeeded persons like the petitioners would have been the beneficiaries but now they are making a grievance that they have suffered due to delay in action by the Board. Be that as it may, in the facts of the case, a discretionary equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not found appropriate to be exercised in favour of the petitioners. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. 4 Let a copy of this order be sent to the Chairman of the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi. It is expected that the Board shall initiate proper action against the concerned officials and staff of the Board as well as against the school for creating such a bad situation. Considering young age of the petitioners and similar other students, in the opinion of the Court they have been sufficiently penalized, hence no other action is required against the petitioners. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) sk