IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10845 of 2010 1. SMT. SUSHMA KUMARI D/O SACHIDANAND PRASAD R/O VILL.- BAIRAM SARAI, P.O. & P.S.- GHOSI, DISTT.- JEHANABAD Versus 1. BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD THROUGH ITS SECRETARY SINHA LIBRARY ROAD, PATNA 2. CHAIRMAN, BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD, SINHA LIBRARY ROAD, PATNA 3. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD, SINHA LIBRARY ROAD, PATNA ----------- 3. 21.06.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’). The petitioner is stated to have appeared at the Diploma of Physical Education Examination conducted by the Board in the year 1994 as a student for the academic session 1985-86 and desires publication of her results. Strong reliance has been placed on certain orders of this Court in writ petitions preferred in the years 2006 and 2008 by certain others directing publication of results. It is next submitted that the respondents had issued a notice to the petitioner on 17.9.2007 in light of certain order of this Court in CWJC No. 11785 of 2006 to which she was not a party. The petitioner claims to have furnished the requisite information in time, notwithstanding which her results have not been published. Counsel for the Board emphasises that the aspect of delay in moving the writ court so belatedly does not appear to have been raised in the earlier writ applications. There cannot be a right to claim parity unless and until this Court decides the issue of delay. The Court cannot loose sight of the fact that the petitioner acquired academic experience as far back as 1985-86. The experience was tested long long years ago in 1994. It is not the case of the petitioner that she has remained acquired with the subject of Physical Education thereafter. It is difficult to appreciate what kind of proficiency the petitioner can claim to have today in pursuance of an examination cleared in 1994. Additionally the Court cannot loose sight of the fact that given the long years that have passed, records, answer sheets, mark sheets etc. may not be easily forthcoming. Much precious time shall be required to be wasted by the Board in hunting records which shall necessarily impact its present functioning. All these do not appear to have been raised for consideration in the orders sought to be relied upon. The Court is therefore not persuaded to find fault with the pleadings in paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit. The Court is not persuaded to issue any mandamus. But if the Board has issued a notice to the petitioner on 17.9.2007 and the petitioner claims to have furnished the requisite information within the time prescribed, nothing prevents the Board from considering her claim, notwithstanding the present order. The Board shall pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order before it. The application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)