IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10648 of 2004 1. KEDAR NATH SINGH, son of late Kapildeo Singh, resident of village Pipra Jaipal, P.W. Town (Arrah), District Bhojpur, at present posted as an Assistant Teacher at Middle School Bhell Dumra, Block Arrah Muffasil North, District Bhojpur, 2. Harendra Kumar Singh, son of late Ram Kumar Singh, resident of village Pararia, P.s. Charpothari, District Bhojpur, at present posted as an Assistant Teacher at Primary School, BEP Geedha Chamar Toli, Block Koilwar, District Bhojpur. 3. Rajendra Prasad, son of late Bhuneshwar Prasad, resident of village Megharia, P.S. Azimabad, District Bhojpur, at present posted as an Assistant Teacher at Primary School, Jorawarpur, Arrah Muffasil, District Bhojpur. 4. Chandra Shekhar Singh, son of late Roop Narayan Singh, resident of village Alkhi Tola, P.S. Barhara, District Bhojpur, at present posted as an Assistant Teacher at Primary School, Tola of Awadhan Rai, Arrah. 5. Siya Ram Mishra, son of Shri Chandrama Mishra, resident of Anand Nagar, Motijheel, P.S. Town (Arrah), District Bhojpur, presently posted as an Assistant Teacher at Middle School, Nanaur, P.S. Agion, Arrah, District Bhojpur. 6. Vishwajeet Prasad Verma, son of late Shankar Jee Sahay Verma, resident of G.B. Nagar, Godhna Road, Arrah, P.S. Nawada (Arrah), District Bhojpur, presently posted as an Assistant Teacher at Primary School, Pipra, Muffasil Arrah, District Bhojpur. Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Secretary, Primary Education, Government of Bihar Patna 2. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Bhojpur at Arrah. 4. Bihar School Examination Board through its Secretary, Sinha Library Road, Patna 5. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Sinha Library Road, Patna. Respondents ----------- On behalf of petitioners :- Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate On behalf of Bihar School Examination Board :- Sunil Kumar Mandal, Advocate 3/- 13.12.2010 The petitioners are Government Teachers, who were the examinees of Teachers Training Examination, 2004. On the date of occurrence, thirty five such teachers were caught cheating and were retrained by the authorities. The rest of the examinees became violent and broke several cars, furniture, Glass Windows etc. of the examination hall and created havoc. The departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioners, rather those persons who were caught in the actual 2 act of cheating have been given the punishment of withholding increment. The personal car of the authorities was also damaged. The school premises where the examination was taking place was also badly damaged. The petitioners have come to this Court praying therein that Bihar School Examination Board could not be enforced the penalty of Rs.5,000/- from each of the candidates in lieu of the damage caused by them. It has been argued that only a few persons have indulged in these activities, thereby accepting the fact that the examinees have indulged in vandalism. The claim is that the petitioners were amongst those who had not participated and contributed in breaking windows panes, benches, cars etc outside the school building. The petitioners are all teachers, being Government employees and by virtue of the post they hold have certain responsibility to the society and have to set an example for the students they teach. If the teachers of the nation behave in this manner then what can be expected from the students. They will only learn and only what they have been taught and seen. This Court does not feel inclined to exercise its power under Rule 226 of the Constitution of India, to give any benefit to the teachers. To invoke the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners must come with a clear conscious, clean heart and a bonafide prayer. To condone acts of vandalism does not come within the purview of the 3 powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I may quote a few lines from a judgment reported in AIR 1997 SC 1236 (Ramniklal N. Bhutta and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others) which is as under: “The power under Article 226 is discretionary. It will be exercised only in furtherance of interests of justice and not merely on the making out of a legal point. And in the matter of land acquisition for public purposes, the interests of justice and the public interest coalesce. They are very often one and the same. Even in a Civil suit, granting of injunction or other similar orders, more particularly of an interlocutory nature, is equally discretionary. The courts have to weigh the public interest vis-a-vis the private interest while exercising the power under Article 226- indeed any of their discretionary powers.” They may approach the Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board or the Human Resources Department to consider their applications sympathetically. Ashwini/- (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)