IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4522 of 2008 Simant Gandhi Primary Teachers Training College, Katihar District Katihar through its Secretary Wasif Akhtar,S/o Late Abdul Moghni, Resident of Mohalla- Fakir Takid, M.G. Road, P.S.- Katihar, District- Katihar. ……….. Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar through its Secretary, Primary, Secondary & Adult Education, New Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Director, Research and Training Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna. ………….. Respondents. WITH CWJC No.9139 of 2008 1. Md. Shamim S/o Md. Mahboob Ali, resident of Village- Vir Nagar, P.S.- Bhargama, District- Purnia. 2. Mirajuddin, S/o Late Allauddin, resident of Village- Babhangamaa, P.S. - Bihpur, District- Bhagalpur. …………. Petitioners. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar through its Secretary, Primary, Secondary & Adult Education, New Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Director, Research and Training Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna. ………….. Respondents. ---------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajiv Kr. Verma, Sr. Adv. Mr. K.N. Sahay, Adv. For the Respondent-State : Md. Arif, J.C. to SCIV (In CWJC No. 4522 of 2008) For B.S.E.B. : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Adv. (In CWJC No. 9139 of 2008) Mr. Piyush Lall, Adv. ----------- 03 10.11.2008 CWJC No. 4522 of 2008 is by Simant Gandhi Primary Teachers Training College. The second writ petition being CWJC No. 9139 of 2008 is by some of the students thereof, who had sat for their primary teachers training course examination conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board in the year 1991 for publication of their results. - 2 - So far as the institution is concerned, it is admitted that it did not receive recognition from the State Government under the relevant statute at the relevant time. In fact, Mr. Rajiv Kumar Verma, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in both the writ petitions has virtually submitted that their institution had made application for grant of permission at the relevant time which remained pending and is thus virtually asking for a mandamus for grant of recognition now. I am afraid the plea cannot be entertained after almost two decades. It was open to the institution to come this Court for a mandamus almost 20 years back but it chose not to do so. In fact, it never moved this Court for the said relief. This itself disentitles the institution from any relief and that too late in the day. Coming to the writ of the students, they submit that they were misled by the authorities into conducting of the course and the taking of the advantage. In my view, that is not wholly correct. Order dated 29.06.1990 passed in CWJC No. 9506 of 1989 (Wasif Akhtar vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) Annexure-1 to CWJC No. 4522 of 2008 would show that it is the Secretary who had approached this Court, who had been permitted to appear in the examination. They were permitted to appear but it was specifically ordered that the results would not be published. It was also specifically observed that the students would be taking the examination at their own risk. Once this permission was granted, it is under this Court’s order that the students took their examination. Thus, it is incorrect to submit that the students were - 3 - innocent victim and had no knowledge of the actual state of affairs. They were fully aware that the institution had no recognition and it is pursuant to interim orders of this Court that they were being permitted to appear in the examination. The next relevant issue is that what happened to the said writ petition? The said writ petition was dismissed for default and no step to restore to same was taken. Once a petition is dismissed all interim orders are vacated automatically. That being the position, the interim order granting permission to seat in the examination also vanished. Even though examination had taken place because that examination was subject to non-publication of result. The restriction being their results cannot be published. Thus, in my view, on grounds of laches and on grounds of there being no recognition to the institution or the course I cannot entertain these writ petitions and both are accordingly dismissed. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J.)