IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 3440 of 2007 Anandi Kumar Anand, son of Shri Ramchandra Prasad, village - Manpur, Post - Andhawari, Police Station - Akbarpur, District - Nawada - Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Bihar 2 The Director, Labour, Employment and Training Department, New Secretariat, Baily Road, Patna 3 The Examination Controller, Labour Employment and Training, ITI Campus, Digha, Patna 4 The Principal, Industrial Training Institute, Nawada - Respondents ----------- 6 03.02.2009 The petitioner has come to this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 15th July 2003 as communicated to him under Memo No 954 by which his admission to Industrial Training Institute, Nawada has been cancelled consequently cancelling his result for the examination of the course of Electrician for the Session 1997-1999. Petitioner had earlier moved this court alongwith others in CWJC No 3932 of 2002 for publication of his results. The said writ application was disposed of on 10.05.2002 with a direction to the authorities to dispose of the grievance of the petitioner by a reasoned order within a time frame. That not having been done, petitioner filed a contempt application being MJC No 2654 of 2002. While the contempt application was pending, the impugned order was passed and, as such, the contempt petition was dismissed by order dated 19.07.2004. In this writ application, it is submitted that there is no dispute that the petitioner was admitted to ITI, Nawada and completed the two years’ course in the session 1997-1999. It is also not in dispute that pursuant to admit card issued, he took the examination but results are not being published merely because prior to admission, he was not registered with the 2 Industries Department and, accordingly, his admission was found to be irregular. In my view, the matter does not end there. There has been no allegation that the petitioner committed a fraud or misled authorities. It is not in dispute that petitioner was admitted and completed the course. It is not in dispute that pursuant to admit card issued, petitioner appeared in the examination. If what is submitted by the respondents is to be accepted, then on mere technicality for which petitioner is not responsible, all his efforts of studying and sitting in the examination would be wiped off. That would indeed be inequitous. In that view of the matter, I hold and direct that once the petitioner was permitted to complete the course and sit for the final examination, his admission to the course cannot be cancelled and that too after almost half a decade. Consequently, the respondents would be liable to publish the results of the petitioner within one month from today on production of a copy of this order before the Director, Labour, Employment and Training Department (respondent No 2). The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)