IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6074 of 2002 HARADHAN MANDAL son of Late Kalipad Mandal, Assistant Teacher, Middle School Tasria, Police Station Maslia, District Dumaka…. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE BIHAR SCHOOL EXAM.BOARD, Sinha Library Road, Patna-17 through its Secretary. 2. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Sinha Library Road, Patna.27. .. Respondents. ----------- 5. 12.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for Bihar School Examination Board. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition reads as follows:- “1. That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ / writs, direction/ directions directing the respondents to publish the result of the petitioner of one year service period training examination which he has been kept pending in the office of the respondents.” Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the aforementioned prayer would submit that the petitioner had appeared in 1994 Annual Examination pertaining to teachers training course of the year 1992-93 and when his result was not published, he had moved this Court by filing this writ petition on 14.5.2002. He has in this connection pointed out that the Board had taken some decision only in the year 2006 as with regard to publishing 2 the result of such candidates whose result has been withheld for want of certain information and/or answer books. He has also relied on information given to the petitioner under Right to Information Act on 30.7.2009 to show that the petitioner had remained vigilant to his cause and as such a direction should be issued to the respondent for declaration of his result. In the opinion of this Court, if a student like the petitioner who had appeared in the examination of 1994 and thereafter had remained silent for next eight years that by itself would be good enough to non- suit him as has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Upendra Bahadur Singh Vs. Bihar School Examination Board in LPA No. 431 of 2005 dismissed on 19.5.2005. In fact such view of the Division Bench has also both earlier and also later been reiterated in a number of cases including in the case of Indu Kumari vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. in CWJC No. 3340 of 2003 dismissed on 12.8.2003 and in the case of Kamleshwar Bhakta vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. in CWJC No. 1078 of 2006 disposed of on 9.8.2006. In all these cases, this Court has held that when a dispute would arise as with regard to appearing in 3 a particular paper and a candidate would file a representation after a long lapse of period, the authority of the Board cannot be called upon to answer such allegation inasmuch as the Rules and Regulations of the Board clearly lay down as with regard to the requirement of preserving answer book and/or result sheets only for a very limited period i.e. till holding of the next examination. In that view of the matter, this writ petition relating to declaration of result of 1994 Examination on account of unexplained delay and laches of more than eight years in filing of this writ application cannot be entertained much less allowed in the year 2010. The plea of information collected by the petitioner under Right to Information Act given by the Board in compliance of the statutory provision in the year 2009 would not mean that even a cause of action of the year 1994 could be revived and agitated by the petitioner at any point of time. Moreover, the decision of the Board with regard to declaring result by awarding average marks to such candidates whose answer papers were missing cannot be made applicable in the case of the petitioner nor such information given to him on 30.7.2009 would provide him 4 with a fresh cause of action for getting his result declared inasmuch as such cause of action had arisen for him way back in the year 1994 when the result of other candidates were declared by the Board wherein he was not found to have passed the examination as he had not appeared in one of the papers of the aforesaid examination. That being so, this Court would not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)