IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO.12526 OF 2007. BRAJ KISHORE SINGH, SON OF SHRI DHARAM NATH SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BASAON, P.O. BASAON, POLICE STATION BASANTPUR, DISTRICT SIWAN, AT PRESENT POSTED AND WORKING AS AN ASSISTANT TEACHER IN GOVT. AIDED MIDDLE SCHOOL, HARIHARPUR KHURD, ANCHAL GOREYAKOTHI-II, DISTRICT SIWAN. .... .... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, SARAN DIVISION AT CHAPRA. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, SIWAN. 5. THE PRINCIPAL, GOVT. BOYS PRIMARY TEACHER’S TRAINING COLLEGE, SIWAN. ……..RESPONDENTS 1ST SET 6. THE BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD, PATNA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, SINHA LIBRARY ROAD, PATNA. 7. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD, SINHA LIBRARY ROAD, PATNA. 8. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD, SINHA LIBRARY ROAD, PATNA. .... RESPONDENTS 2ND SET --------- 4 30-11-2011 Having heard counsel for the parties as with regard to the following relief:- “For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus for commanding and directing the respondent 2nd set to accept the examination form along with fee of the petitioner for teacher’s training examination, 2007 and allow him to appear in teacher’s training examination, 2007, for which the petitioner has already filled-up his 2 examination forms before the due date before the Principal of Govt. Boys Teacher’s training College, Siwan which is being duly recommended by the District Superintendent of Education, Siwan well within time, but the respondent 2nd set has not accepted the same i.e. forms of the petitioner even though he has undergone his teacher’s training course from the Govt. Boys Teacher’s training College, Siwan. II.For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus for commanding and directing the respondent authorities concerned to allow the petitioner to appear in teacher’s training examination, 2007 which is going to be conducted in near future for which other teachers fee and forms have been accepted whereas the petitioner’s fee and forms has been returned to the concerned Principal i.e. Govt. Boys Teacher’s training College, Siwan either in a malafide intention or under wrong impression. III.For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of the mandamus for commanding and directing the respondent authorities concerned to accept the fee and forms of the petitioner for teacher’s training examination 2007 even with late fine even though the petitioner has no fault on his part and as per the direction of the authorities of Bihar School Examination Board, Patna he has again made bank draft in favour of Bihar School Examination Board, Patna but even after that the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna is not accepting either the first draft which has been given to the concerned Principal of Govt. Boys Teachers training College, Siwan and the subsequent draft made by the petitioner himself. IV. For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of declaration that for no fault on the part of the petitioner the concerned 3 respondents cannot punish the petitioner by depriving to appear in teacher’s training examination, 2007 which is going to be conducted in near future i.e. since 31.07.2007. and the admitted fact that this writ petition was itself filed on 21.09.2007 though the affidavit was sworn in support of the application on 17.07.2007 would go to show that that whole writ application was still a born child, inasmuch as, no direction could have been issued on 21.09.2007 giving liberty to the petitioner to appear in the examination which had already commenced on 31.07.2007. It was therefore, quite easy for this Court to dismiss this writ application as being infructuous from the inception. This court, however, has considered the other aspect that the petitioner is a teacher in Government aided School allegedly working since 05.11.1977, and that he was sent for in-job one year teachers’s training course specially meant for working teachers by the District Superintendent of Education in the year 1999. The petitioner has also claimed that he had completed one year teacher’s training course and thereafter he 4 became eligible to appear in the qualifying training examination conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board. It is the further case of the petitioner that when he had filled up the form for 2004 examination, the Board had issued admit card but the petitioner could not appear in the said examination. He has, accordingly, assailed the decision of the Board of not allowing the petitioner to appear in 2007 examination by even not issuing the admit card though his form was forwarded by the Principal of the teacher’s training College and counter signed by the District Superintendent of Education. In the counter affidavit that has been filed by the Bihar School Examination Board, the plea for denying the petitioner to appear in 2007 examination is that, earlier when the fees and form of the petitioner was provisionally accepted by issuing admit card in the year 2004, it was detected that his appointment in the Government aided school was doubtful. It has also been pointed out that the result of similarly situated candidates appearing in 5 2004 examination were withheld whose appointments were found to be doubtful and therefore even if the petitioner could have also appeared in 2004 examination he could not have been declared successful. In the same vein it is also explained that the petitioner’s case was never forwarded to the Board for his appearing in 2007 examination and in fact based on his candidature of 2004 examination, when the cases of all other candidates whose results were also withheld were sought to be scrutinized and the petitioner was also given liberty to produce the copy of his Service-book as also the certificate with regard to payment of salary from the treasury. It is the case of the Board that pursuant to such query made on 21.07.2009 as contained in Annexure-A, no reply was received from the petitioner nor he had produced the relevant records as directed in the letter of the board. From the pleadings on record, it would appear that there is a genuine dispute as with regard to the candidature of the petitioner and his being qualified to appear in the examination of the Board. The Board 6 and its Authorities have the power to examine eligibility of the candidates as per its own rules and regulations. The one year on-job teacher’s training is otherwise equivalent to two years regular teacher’s training course and would only apply to the working teachers in the Government School or Schools in which Government is making committed expenditure for making payment of salary by way of making such Schools Government aided Schools. The petitioner is said to have been appointed by the Managing Committee of School in the year 1997 and therefore, if his such appointment has already been approved by the Director of Primary Education and the District Superintendent of Education for the purposes of payment of salary against the sanctioned ear marked post in such Government aided Schools as a matric untrained teacher, the petitioner on being selected and admitted in the Government teacher’s training College in a proper and authorized manner and having undergone the one year course can become qualified by appearing in the Board’s examination and if the Board wants to be 7 satisfied to all these aspects, the petitioner ought to have availed the liberty as extended to him in Annexure-A, the letter of the Board dated 21.07.2009. The fact that the petitioner was awaiting the result of this writ application filed by him on 21.09.2007, would definitely go to show that the petitioner did not choose to succumb to the jurisdiction of Board in the hope that he may get relief of a direction to the Board for his appearing in the examination. Considering all these aspects, this Court would give liberty to the petitioner to satisfy the Authorities of the Board as with regard to his genuineness in the appointment and being selected and admitted as also having undergone teacher’ training course and if the petitioner would produce the relevant documents as sought for by the Board in its letter dated 21.07.2009 and the Authorities of the Board become satisfied as with regard to his candidature, the petitioner will be allowed to appear in the next examination without any further obstacle created by the Authorities. If, 8 however, the Board finds that the petitioner is not eligible to appear in such Board’s examination, it would pass a reasoned order setting out the grounds for rejecting the case of the petitioner. As the dispute has continued for a period of almost 12 years ever since, the petitioner was admitted in the teacher’s training course in the year 1999, this Court would direct the Authorities of the Board to take a final decision within a period of three months from the date the petitioner would file his reply along with the documents i.e. available with him in response to Board’s Memo No. 31 dated 21.07.2009(Annexure-A). With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. RANJAN (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)