IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.737 of 2008 SATYENDRA KUMAR SON OF LATE KAPIL SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – MOGALPRA, P.O. LAKHANPURA, P.S. – BAKHTIYARPUR, DISTRICT – PATNA, AT PRESENT SECRETARY OF THE STUDENTS UNION OF GAUTAM BUDHA PRIMARY TEACHERS TRAINING COLLEGE AT SAMASTIPUR -------- APPELLANT Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR, RESEARCH AND TRAINING, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. THE BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD, SINHA LIBRARY ROAD, PATNA ----------- RESPONDENTS ----------- For the appellant: Mr. Rajendra Sharma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Karn, JC to AAG- VI For the Board : Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal, Advocate P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --- Dated, the 20th November, 2008 This letters patent appeal is at the instance of the unsuccessful petitioner. He filed the writ petition in a representative capacity for a direction to the Bihar School Examination Board (for short, „the Board‟) to publish the result of the students, who appeared in the examination for the Sessions 1986-88, 1987-89 and 1988-90. 2 2. The single judge did not find any merit in the writ petition, particularly, in the light of the order of this court in the writ petition being CWJC. No. 5281 of 1990 filed by the college viz., Gautam Budh Primary Teachers‟ Training College. 3. Gautam Budh Primary Teachers‟ Training College filed the writ petition before this court being CWJC. No.5281 of 1990 for a direction to the State government and its functionaries to grant recognition and for a direction to the Board to permit the students of its college, who had completed the courses for the Sessions 1986-88, 1987-89 and 1988-90, to appear in the Primary Teachers Training Examination. 4. In so far as the aspect of recognition of the college was concerned, this court directed the authorities to decide the question relating to recognition of college one way or the other within three months and communicate the decision to the college. As regards the students who had completed their courses from the said college in the Sessions 1986-88, 1987-89 and 1988-90, the court permitted them to appear in the ensuing Primary Teachers Training Examination making it clear that the students would be doing so on their own risk and that the result shall not be published until the question of recognition was finally decided by the State government one way or the other. This is what the Division Bench said in its order: 3 “We, accordingly, direct that if the Board is so satisfied filed as to the bonafide and genuineness of the claims of the students shall allow the students of the petitioner institution of the Sessions 1986-88, 1987-89 and 1988-90 to appear in the ensuing Primary Teachers Training Examination and shall accept the fees and forms duly submitted on their behalf and shall also condone the late fine, if any. The students appearing in the examination by virtue of this order shall do so on their own risk and no right shall renew to them nearly on that basis. Their result shall not be published until the question of the recognition of this institution is finally decided by the State Government one way or the other. It is made clear that the publication of their result will abide by the final decision in the recognition matter, that is to say their result shall be published only in case recognition is accorded to the institution.” 5. Although, there is some dispute between the parties as to whether the application made by the college for affiliation has been rejected or not, but the counsel for the appellant does not dispute that so far no recognition has been granted to the institution. If that be so, this court had already made it clear way back in the year 1990 that the students appearing in the examination would be doing so on their own risk and that the result shall not be published until the question of recognition of the college was finally decided by the State government. 6. The counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of SECRETARY, MAHARASHI DAYANAND ARYA SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 436, wherein the 4 Supreme Court considered the matter thus: “Two questions arise for determination in this appeal by special leave: (1) whether the appellant institution is entitled to recognition and (2) in what way should the students who were permitted to take the examination under the orders of this Court be dealt with. Mr. Gopal Subramanium, counsel appearing for the appellant institution concedes in term of the decision of this Court that Arya Samaj institutions established outside the State of Punjab would not be minority institutions. That aspect must be taken as final. It appears that the State Government has in the meantime taken a decision not to recognize the institution on the plea that the conditions are not satisfied but the final order of the government does not indicate any objective application of mind to the matter. MR. Pramod Swarup, counsel appearing for the State of Bihar agrees that the affiliation matter shall be reopened and the appellant shall be given a reasonable hearing. So far as the second aspect is concerned we accept in retrospect that permission to take the examination should not have been granted, particularly when the institution is neither recognized nor affiliated to the Bhagalpur University which has the territorial jurisdiction over the institution. But the examination was held several years back and the publication of result has been withheld. Let the result be published . But we make it clear that the appellant institution would not be permitted to admit the students or make any application for permitting its students to take any further examination until the application for affiliation is granted. The State of Bihar will re-dispose of the matter within three months from today.” 7. We are afraid that the decision of the Supreme Court in the afore referred case has no application to the fact situation of the present case. Moreover, relating to this very controversy, there is already a decision by this court in the writ petition filed earlier by the college that the result of the students, who had cleared their courses 5 for the Sessions 1986-88, 1987-89 and 1988-90 (the appellant represents such students) shall not be declared until the issue of recognition is decided by the State government. 8. Letters patent appeal has no merit. It is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Neyaz/-