IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5034 of 2002 MUKESH KUMAR & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 7. 16.01.2009 Heard leaned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioners came to this Court on 17.4.2002 in the present writ application with a claim that they may be allowed to attend their classes in the Industrial Training Institute at Muzaffarpur. Their grievance is that after having been granted admission in the year 2000 they attended classes till 25.2.2002 when they were denied the right to attend classes from 26.2.2002 when final examinations were to be held in July 2002. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had secured admission in accordance with the procedure and after interview. That there was no justification to deprive them from attending classes or from giving final examination when they had virtually completed the course. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit. The contention therein is that admissions were granted in pursuance of the selection to be done by a committee comprising of the District Magistrate or his representative as Chairman with the Principal of the Institute as the Member Secretary and the Welfare Officer of the District as Public Representative and the representative of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The petitioners did not appear before any selection committee and that they were granted admission in illegal manner by the Principal himself bypassing the selection committee. Reliance is also placed on the master chart for admission enclosed as Annexure ‘B’ to the counter affidavit to submit that it contains overwriting and corrections and deletion with regard to the petitioners. Learned Counsel for the petitioners urged that they were issued interview letters by the Principal and appeared in response to the same and were granted admission thereafter. The central issue in the controversy is if the petitioners appeared before the selection committee and were interviewed by the selection committee and then granted admission. The respondents deny so. The petitioners in their writ petition or in the supplementary affidavit filed on 31.8.2005 after the first counter affidavit was served on them on 18.7.2002 have not denied these facts. In fact it is their specifi9c pleading in paragraph 5 of the supplementary affidavit that they are not aware whether the select list prepared by the Principal was approved by the selection committee. This would inter alia mean that the petitioners virtually admit never having appeared before the selection committee. If the petitioners obtained admission in a manner contrary to law then compassion cannot be invoked by them to perpetuate the illegality on the submission that they had virtually completed the course. The respondents in their counter affidavit have also stated that the Principal has been taken to task by institution of an FIR against him. At this belated stage today, learned Counsel for the petitioners sought adjournment to now file a supplementary affidavit to urge the stand of the petitioners with regard to the selection committee. This Court is not persuaded that the petitioners are entitled to that indulgence. They have only themselves to blame for their tardiness after having instituted the writ application. This Court finds no merit in this writ application. It is accordingly dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)