IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4770 of 2010 UPENDRA PRASAD SINGH S/O LATE CHANDRIKA PRASAD SINGH R/O VILL & P.O. PRATAPGANJ, P.S.LALGANJ, DISTT- VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR …………………… Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,PATNA 2. THE REGISTRAR BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR 3. THE PRINCIPAL , GOVERNMENT TEACHERS TRAINING COLLEGE TURKI, MUZAFFARPUR ………………….. Respondents ****** 02. 22.07.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the B.R.A. Bihar University and the State. Petitioner claims to have appeared in the examination of B.Ed., as a regular student of Government Teachers Training College, Turki, Muzaffarpur for the Session 1983-84. Petitioner’s case is that he appeared in the examination, held on 19th June, 1987 with Roll No. A 329, bearing Registration No. 4446/1974. His result was not published by the B.R.A. Bihar University, though the College in question was affiliated with the B.R.A. Bihar University. He on several occasions approached the concerned authorities of the University for publication of his result, but till date it 2 has not been published. On account of non- publication of result, he is going to loose the opportunity of being appointed on the post of trained teacher. Though Petitioner has submitted that on several occasions, he approached the authorities of the University for publication of his result, but in support of this statement, not a single chit of papers, has been annexed to show that at any point of time, the petitioner ever approached the authorities or had shown any interest in past for publication of his result. The petitioner has, however, placed reliance on an Order, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5035 of 2006, whereby in case of five petitioners, a direction had been issued for publication of result and as a consequence, the result of such students was finally published. Counsel appearing on behalf of the B.R.A. Bihar University has submitted that the petitioner can not place any reliance on the Order dated 27.09.2006, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5035 of 2006. In a special circumstance, due to non-filing of Counter Affidavit by the University, a direction 3 was issued for publication of their result. In that case, against the Order passed in the writ application, the University did not prefer any review as LPA, as such when the contempt proceeding was initiated, the University had to publish the result of those students, giving minimum pass marks to them in all subjects, despite this fact that not a single chit of paper relating to their appearance in the examination, their answer-sheet or mark-sheet were available. Counsel for the University submits that so far the students in the present writ application is concerned, he is not in a position to produce any document and the University is also not possessing any document in support of either of the fact that the petitioner has appeared or not appeared in the examination. In the given circumstance, it is not possible to direct the University to publish the result of petitioner. Petitioner, has not been able to explain 25 years long delay. The writ application is fit to be dismissed on point of limitation itself. On merit also, there is nothing for which a 4 direction can be issued for publication of the petitioner’s result. Petitioner has option to approach any other forum, if it is available for publication of his result. So far as the direction of this Court is concerned, it is not available to the petitioner. Hence, the writ application is dismissed. S.K.M. (Mridula Mishra, J.)