IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17318 of 2008 RAVINDRA CHAUDHARY Versus 1. THE BIHAR SCHOOL EXAM.BOARD (Senior Secondary) through its Chairman, Budha Marg, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board (Sr.Secondary_ 3. The Deputy Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board (Sr. secondary), Budh Marg, Patna. For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar For the Board : Mr. Ajay Bihari Sinha. ----------- 3. 19.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Respondent-Bihar School Examination Board. It is the case of the petitioner that he passed the Intermediate Arts Examination in 1992 conducted by the erstwhile Bihar Intermediate Education Council under Roll Code 0151 and Roll No. 30075. He was declared pass in First Division having secured 756 marks. The original marks sheet issued to him annexed at Annexure-2 confirms the same. The petitioner then secured appointment in the office of the Superintendent of Post- Offices, Kanpur. His employer sought verification of marks when on 23.9.1995 the Bihar Intermediate education council confirmed that the petitioner had obtained 756 marks. The petitioner was then issued his original certificate by the Bihar Intermediate Education Council bearing no. 41865 on 20.9.2007 which also demonstrates that he passed in Ist Division corroborating his assertion that he secured 756 marks. It appears that in the meantime his employer sought second verification from the Bihar Intermediate Education Council which by its report dated 31.5.2007 nearly fifteen years later reported that the matter was referred to a Committee which 2 concluded on examination of records that the petitioner has, in fact, passed in 3rd Division. That his marks of 756 was forged. The Respondents in their counter affidavit have sought to persuade this Court that they have examined the records in support of the report dated 31.5.2007 and stand by the allegations of forgery. This Court finds it difficult to appreciate the stand of the Respondent-Board. Nonetheless, this Court has its limitations in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution with regard to facts, especially when the Respondents dispute the same. The petitioner was issued original marks sheet in 1992/1993. The Respondents in their counter affidavit did not deny that the marks sheet was correct or that the marks sheet itself was a forged document. Their own enquiry report of 1995 confirms that the petitioner had secured 756 marks followed by such reconfirmation on 20.9.2007. In the interregnum comes another report dated 31.5.2007. It was the marks sheet of the petitioner which was the subject matter of scrutiny by a Committee. Consequences of such scrutiny were adverse to the petitioner. Nonetheless, the Bihar Intermediate Education Council (Higher Secondary) which is run by educated persons of high educational qualifications does not consider it necessary to hear much less to issue notice or confront the person sought to be indicted. The petitioner produced the documents issued in his favour. His career is at stake. The 3 Bihar Intermediate Education Council treats him as another faceless person and assumes powers to itself beyond law. This Court could have set aside the order dated 31.5.2007 on that ground. It is unfortunate that despite this Court and the Apex Court having said times without number that an order adverse to a person cannot be passed behind his back, the Bihar Intermediate Education Council insists on doing so and which the successor body Bihar School Examination Board seeks to support. It is unfortunate that this basic principle of law which stands well settled by now is deliberately ignored by the Respondents generating litigation, flooding this Court with cases which could otherwise have been prevented, if the parties would have been heard and reasoned order passed after considering the case of both sides after taking documentary and oral evidence. This Court, therefore, sets aside the order dated 31.5.2007. On the date that the petitioner appears with a copy of this order, the Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board (Higher Secondary) shall be bound to furnish to the petitioner the materials on which the Board urges that his marks sheet is fake. No latitude is being given by this Court to the Secretary in this regard. The date of hearing in the matter shall be fixed by the Secretary there and then in presence of the petitioner. The petitioner shall be given liberty to file his reply and to meet the materials against him when a final reasoned order supported by documentary evidence shall be passed by the Secretary of the Board within ten days from the 4 conclusion of such hearing on a date fixed in consultation with the petitioner. The writ application stands disposed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)