IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 10247 of 2008 1 Prem Shankar Kumar Jha, son of late Nageshwar Jha, resident of Village - Pindauta Khurd, P S - Tisiauta, Dist - Vaishali 2 Ajit Kumar, son of late Yugal Kishore Rai, resident of Mohalla - Nayatola - Technical Chauk, Muzaffarpur, P S - Kazi Mohammadpur, Dist - Muzaffarpur - Petitioners Versus 1 The State of Bihar 2 The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, Dist - Muzaffarpur 3 The District Education Officer, Muzaffarpur, Dist - Muzaffarpur 4 The Bihar School Examination Board, Patna through its Secretary 5 The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna - Respondents *** For the petitioners : Mr Mahendra Thakur, Advocate For the B S E B : Mr S S Mishra For the S t a t e : Ms Archana Prasad, J C to G P VIII *** 3 27.11.2008 The two petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers on compassionate ground in the years, 1995 and 1993 respectively. Having been appointed as Assistant Teachers, they were then sent for Teachers’ Training Course by official orders to the Government Teachers’ Training College, Turki, Muzaffarpur in the Session 2000-2001 and 1999-2000 respectively. Having completed the training course when examinations were not being taken, some persons approached this Court in a Public Interest Litigation and by order dated 18.05.2004, as passed in CWJC No 6159 of 2004, a Division Bench of this Court directed that the respondents were obliged to take the examinations of similar persons who had their training and, accordingly, examinations were held on 05.11.2004 in which both the petitioners participated. Results not having been declared, the petitioners have come to this Court. A 2 counter affidavit has been filed by the Bihar School Examination Board which is the Board conducting the Teachers’ Training Examination in which it is said that the Regional deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur wrote to the Board that there was enquiry pending against the petitioners with regard to the genuineness of their appointments and acting on that information, the Board is not in a position to publish the result. Heard the parties and with their consent, the writ application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. It is not in dispute that the petitioner duly attended the course and completed the training at Government Teachers’ Training College. It is not in dispute that pursuant to directions of this Court for holding examination, examinations were held in which petitioners sat. Under such circumstances, I see no reason why results are not being published. Merely because the appointments of the petitioners as Assistant Teachers is being enquired into and the matter has been pending since long cannot be made a ground to deny the petitioners their results. Petitioners have sat in the examinations in November, 2004 that is four years back. It is high time their results were published. I, therefore, direct that the respondent-Bihar School Examination Board would publish the results of the petitioners within fifteen days from the date of production of a copy of this order before respondent No 5, the Secretary of the Board. The writ application is consequently allowed. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh) 3