IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1085 of 2009 1. Koshi Physical Training College Madhepura, through its Secretary, Rajdeep Prasad Yadav, s/o late Sainy Prasad Yadav, resident of Mohalla – Bhirkhi, Ward no.22, Police Station & District – Madhepura 2. Rajdeep Prasad yadav, Secretary of College in question, s/o late Sainy Prasad Yadav, resident of Mohalla – Bhirkhi, Ward no.22, Police Station & District – Madhepura ……………. Appellants vs. 1. The State Of Bihar through its Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna 2. The Secretary, Art, Culture and Youth Affairs Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director, Art, Culture and Youth Affairs Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. The Bihar School Examination Board, through its Secretary, Patna – 17 5. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna - 17 …… Respondents ----------- For the appellants: Mr. Basant Chaudhary, Advocate Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State: Mr. Lalit Kishore, AAG III For the NCTE: Mr. S.N. Pathak, SCCG --- 3 16/2/2010 Questioning the soundness of the order dated 26.2.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC. No.2602 of 2009, the present appeal has been preferred. We have heard Mr. Basant Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellants, on the question of 2 admission. The factual narration in detail is not necessary in this appeal inasmuch as the relief sought for before the learned Single Judge was that the students prosecuted their physical training course in the appellant College in the year 1989-90 to 1995-96 before the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 ( for short, ‘the NCTE Act’) was applicable to the aforesaid course in the State of Bihar. Be it noted, the date of applicability of the NCTE Act qua the physical training course in Bihar is 23.9.1999. As is evincible from the order of the learned Single Judge, he has declined to entertain the writ petition on many a ground and one ground is enormous delay in approaching the court. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants, we are of the considered opinion that it is inconceivable in the field of education that a student who had studied a particular course in the year 1989-90 would still have the aspiration alive to undertake the examination in 2008. Quite apart from above, we are unable to find any rationale on the part of the students 3 for waiting so long and also the logic propounded by Mr. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the institution, that the examination could not be held. The same is sans substratum. We are absolutely conscious that the logicability has its own limitation but granting permission at this stage to hold the examination would only pyramid the grammar of anarchy which is inconceivable in law. Ex-consequenti, the appeal, being sans merits, stands dismissed in limine. Neyaz/ (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)