IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.38 of 2008 SHOBHA KUMARI Versus THE BIHAR SCHOOL EXAM.BOARD &OTHERS ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Chakrobarty For the Respondents1 & 2 : Mr. P. K. Shahi, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Gyan Shankar ------------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------------ Dated, the 25th July, 2008. The grievance of the appellant is that although she has successfully passed the teachers training examination and she has also been given marks sheet, she is not being issued teachers training certificate by the Bihar School Examination Board. 2. She was unsuccessful in getting any relief from the Single Judge to that extent and, hence, the appeal. To our query, counsel for the appellant admitted that the appellant prosecuted her studies during the Session 1985-87 in Arya Teachers Training College, Chatwara, P.S. Mahua District Vaishali and that the said Institute had no recognition for that Session. It had no recognition for other Sessions as well like 1983-85, 1984-86. From the material that has been placed on record by the parties before the Single Judge, it transpires that the Institute, namely, Arya Teachers Training College, Chatwara, P.S. Mahua, District Vaishali approached this Court, way back in the year 1992, for issuance of a direction to the Bihar School - 2 - Examination Board to publish the result of the students of the College for the Sessions 1983-85, 1984-86 and 1985-87. The said writ petition came to be dismissed by a Division Bench on 2nd September, 1992. The relevant consideration by the Division Bench reads thus : “ 13. This aspect of the matter is fully covered by a decision of the Supreme Court in A.P.C.M.E. Society Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1986 S.C.1490 and Faridi Primary Teachers Training College and others Vs. The State of Bihar reported in 1991(3) SCC, 87. 14. A full Bench of this Court has also considered the aspect of the matter in Amarendra Pratap Singh and others Vs. Lalit Narain Mithila University and others reported in 1987 BLJR, 590 as also in Rahmania Primary Teachers Training College Vs. State of Bihar reported in 1991(1) PLJR, 595. 15. This Court while considering law laid down by the Supreme Court of India has to bear in mind the distinction between a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India an order passed by the Supreme Court in the facts and circumstances of the case before it in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 thereof. In terms of Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court is entitled to pass any order so as to do complete justice between the parties before it. This Court in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, however, is not entitled to do so. 16. In a recent decision, in State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Surinder Kumar and others reported in 1992(1) SCC 489 it has been held by the Supreme Court :- “A decision is available as a precedent only if it decides a question of law. The respondents, are therefore, not entitled to rely upon an order of this Court which directs a temporary employee to be regularised in his service without assigning reasons. It has to be presumed that for special ground which must have been available to the temporary employees in those cases, they were entitled to the relief granted. Merely because grounds are not mentioned in a judgment of this court, it cannot be understood to have passed without an adequate - 3 - legal basis therefor. On the question of the requirement to assign reasons for an order, a distinction has to be kept in mind between a court whose judgment is not subject to further appeal and other courts. One of the main reasons for disclosing and discussing the ground in support of a judgment is to enable a higher court to examine the same in case of a challenge. It is desirable to assign reasons for every order or judgment, but the requirement is not imperative in the case of this Court. It is, therefore, futile to suggest that if this court has issued an order which apparently seems to be similar to the impugned order, the High Court can also do so. There is still another reasons why the High Court cannot be equated with this Court. The Constitution has, by Article 142 empowered the Supreme Court to make such orders as may be necessary “for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it”. Which authority the High court does not enjoy. The jurisdiction of the High Court, while dealing with a writ petition, is circumscribed by the limitation discussed and declared by the judicial decision, and it cannot transgress the limits on the basis of whims or subjective sense of justice varying from Judge to Judge.” 17. This aspect of the matter has also recently been considered by a division Bench decision of this Court in Maulana Mazharul Haque Primary Teachers Training College Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 1992(1)B.L.J. page 712. 18. In view of the aforementioned authoritative pronouncement of this Court as also the Supreme Court of India, it is not possible for us to grant any relief to the petitioners as we are bound by the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India as also the binding precedent aforementioned. This application is, therefore, dismissed.” 3. It would be, thus, seen that the Institute failed before this Court in getting a direction to the Bihar School Examination Board to publish the results of the students, inter alia, for the Session 1985-87. Assuming that the counsel for the appellant is right in contending that later on the result was declared and the petitioner got - 4 - 1st division and was also provided with marks sheet and that the declaration of result and the marks sheet provided to the appellant are not forged and fabricated but that does not make the case of the appellant better. The Bihar School Examination Board may be directed to issue teachers training certificate only if the training was taken by the student from a recognized institute and not otherwise. Since admittedly the appellant took teachers training during the Session 1985-87 from the institute, namely, Arya Teachers Training College, Chatwara, P.S. Mahua, District Vaishali which was not a recognized Institute, no direction can be issued to the Bihar School Examination Board to issue trained teaching examination certificate to the appellant. How can a Mandamus be issued to an authority to do an act de hors law. The appellant must blame herself that she took training from an Institute which was not recognized. 4. Dismissal of the writ petition by the Single Judge in this regard cannot be faulted. The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J AMIN/-