IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2321 of 2010 1. AMAN KUMAR S/O BINOD KUMAR SINGH R/O VILL.- JAMALAPUR BIGHA, P.S.- ATHMALGOLA, DISTT.- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY, STATE BOARD OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, TECHNOLOGY BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA, BIHAR 3. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION, STATE BOARD OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, TECHNOLOGY BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA, BIHAR 4. THE PRINCIPAL, GOVT. POLYTECHNIC, GULZARBAGH, P.S. ALAMGANJ, DISTT.- PATNA-7 ----------- 03 15/03/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Board of Technical Education. Time was granted on 16.2.2010 for filing of counter affidavit within three weeks. Unfortunately, the respondents have chosen to file a counter affidavit at their leisure and beyond that time on the 12th of March, 2010 in the Registry and which consequently has not been placed on record. This Court is not persuaded to hold up the proceedings for the laches of the respondents. This Court, therefore, requested the counsel for the respondents to make available his copy of the counter affidavit for perusal whereafter submissions have been made by both sides from the same, copy of which has already been served on the counsel for the petitioner in advance. This Court grants time to file counter affidavit and directs matters to be listed well in time 2 thereafter so that copies of the counter affidavit are available on record when the matter is called out and the Court also has the opportunity to consider the same appropriately well in time. This Court expects that the State respondents shall adequately assist the court by filing counter affidavit well in advance in the Registry so that it is available in time. Let the office trace out the counter affidavit and place the same on record. The allegations related to alleged use of unfair means in one paper of Physics in the diploma of Civil Engineering examination. In pursuance of the earlier order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 269 of 2010 the respondents have passed an order dated 17.11.2009 as communicated on 21.1.2010. Learned counsel submits that even if an individual show cause notice has been issued, the respondents were required to pass an individual order explicitly stating that they had considered the explanation and setting out the reasons why the explanation was not acceptable. That not having been done, the impugned orders are vitiated and the respondents are obliged to publish his results of the diploma in Civil Engineering examination in the Session 2008-2011. 3 It has been noticed that a show cause notice was issued to him on 27.10.2009 for alleged use of unfair means during the examination. He replied to the same on 6.11.2009, when he took the stand that someone else had thrown a chit beneath his seat in the examination hall and for the recovery of which he was allegedly being blamed for using unfair means. Learned counsel for the State urged that the applicability of the principles of natural justice with regard to a show cause and consideration of the reply to the same can have no uniform yardstick, but it shall depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, the allegations related to use of unfair means during the course of examination and recovery of a chit leading to a conclusion that he was using unfair means. From the reply to the show cause notice given by the petitioner, it is apparent that he does not deny that a chit was recovered from under his seat. What is not mentioned in his reply to the show cause notice or in the entire writ petition is that the petitioner had signed the chit in acknowledgement of its recovery from under his seat. The fact that the petitioner had signed the chit recovered during the course of examination from under 4 his seat is not disputed and has not been challenged either in the reply to the show cause or in the writ petition. The finding of the respondents that the chit bears his signature, to this Court is sufficient compliance of the principles of natural justice to up hold the decision not to publish his results as falling in the category of candidate who has used unfair means. This Court finds no reason to interfere in the impugned order. The application is dismissed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)