IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11269 of 2008 1. Ajmullah son of Md. Sakir resident of village Narayanpur, P.S. Simari, District- Buxar (Bihar). 2. Nasim Ahmad son of nabi Hussain, resident of village Sowan, P.S. Krishna Bramha, District- Buxar (Bihar). 3. Malti Devi wife of late Ramashish Ram, resident of village Sahiar, P.S. Simri District- Buxar (Bihar). 4. Bachacha Lal Ram son of Ganga Dayal Ram, resident of village Rajapur, P.S. Simri, District- Buxar (Bihar). 5. Jawahar Prasad, son of Sri Krishun Prasad, resident of village Sahiar, P.S. Simri District- Buxar (Bihar). 6. Lalan Ram, son of Muni Lal Ram, resident of village Rajapur, P.S. Simri District- Buxar (Bihar). 7. Asharaf Ali son of Jibrati Miyan resident of village Narayanpur, P.S. Simri District- Buxar (Bihar). ………… Petitioners. VERSUS 1. The Government of Bihar through Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Bihar School Examination Board, Patna through its Chairman. 3. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna. 4. The District Education Officer, Patna. ……………. Respondents. --------------- 02 24.10.2008 The petitioners had sat for teachers training course examination in the year 1991 being a student of Budha Prathamik Shikashak Shikasha Mahavidayalaya, Patna (Bihar). The examination of which was allegedly conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board. Petitioner has in support thereof annexed their admit cards. The writ petition has now been filed almost after 20 years for a direction to declare results. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Bihar School Examination Board clearly stating that for the session in question, the petitioners’ institution was not recognized for the course in question. - 2 - In my view, this is sufficient to disentitle the petitioner from result, even though, he may have sat for examination. If the institution did not carry recognition then notwithstanding the fact that the Board took the examination for the said course results cannot be permitted to be published. The writ petition merits no consideration and is dismissed accordingly. There is yet another ground for not entertaining the writ petition, the writ petition has been filed 20 years too late. ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.) Trivedi/