IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1925 of 2010 1. RADHA KUMARI D/O LATE KAPILDEO SINGH R/O VILL-JAWAHI, P.S RADHAUR, DISTT- SITAMARHI, AT PRESENT R/O VILL- DAYA NAGAR, P.S BELSAND, DISTT- SITAMARHI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD, PATNA 3. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD, PATNA 4. THE SECRETARY, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHERS EDUCATION ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Chhote Lal Narayan Singh, SC I with Ms. Babita Kumarti, AC to SC I For the Board : Mr. Syed Arshad Alam, Advocate For the N.C.T.E. : Mr. S.N.Pathak, Advocate ------- 4. 02.11.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is aggrieved by the cancellation of her result and mark sheet dated 20.6.2005 after publication for the Primary Teachers Training Examination 2004 and desires to be treated as a student for the Session 1992-93 and publish her results accordingly after having cleared the failed paper in a compartmental examination in the year 2004. It does not appear to be in controversy that the petitioner was a student of the Teachers Training Course at the Government Ladies Teachers Training College, Dumra at Sitamarhi in the Session 1992-93 and appeared at the examination held in the year 1994. Her results declared her to be fail only in the practical paper. It is her case that no examination was held for the Teachers Training Course after 1994 till the year 2004. She claims to have appeared in 2004 in a compartmental examination for the failed Theory paper only whereafter her results were published which has subsequently been cancelled. 2 The contention of the respondents in their counter affidavit is that those who had failed in the 1994 examination were required to appear in all papers at a subsequent examination. That there was no provision for appearing in the limited paper in the compartmental examination. That in the year 2004 the petitioner had submitted her application representing her desire to appear in all the papers. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the instruction dated 7.2.2004 requiring the failed candidates of 1994 to appear in all papers pertains to other two named institutions and not the petitioner’s institution. In so far as the issue of legality of a compartmental examination is concerned the respondents have themselves published an advertisement on 28.5.2007 bearing no. 10/2007 permitting a compartmental examination for those who had failed in 2004 examination. Even if the results of the petitioner were published and cancelled in 2005 there is no explanation in the writ petition why she has chosen to assail the same nearly five years later in 2010. If that was not enough, this Court on perusal of her application submitted in 2004 finds it difficult to ascertain and decide if she had represented to the authorities that she wished to appear in the failed paper of practical only and not in the entire examination as the relevant column bears no necessary endorsement. The admit card issued to her contains a tick mark only on the paper ‘Practical’. Reading together the application and the admit card this Court finds it difficult to arrive at a conclusive finding whether she had submitted her candidature in 2004 only for the failed paper or for all the papers. The issue 3 of the legality of a compartmental examination stands affirmed by the advertisement of the respondents dated 28.5.2007 permitting the same. If the petitioner files a representation before the respondent Board, let the Secretary of the Board examine the matter, grant a personal hearing if the petitioner so requests and then pass a reasoned and speaking order on the issue within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order. Needless to state that any material on which the respondent Board may seek to rely shall be furnished to the petitioner with an opportunity to reply. Since both the sides have not placed relevant regulations before the Court but have placed their pleadings and argued on possibility and permutation only this Court had considered it proper to dispose off the application in the present manner. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)