IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18773 of 2010 Ram Shrestha Bhagat, son of Late Ram Bilash Bhagat, R/O Vill.- Parsa Malind, P.S. Sonbarsa, District- Sitamarhi, presently working as Principal M.K.College, Bhutahi, Sitamarhi ……….. Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2.The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Budh Marg, Patna 3.The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Budh Marg, Patna 4.The Deputy Secretary (College Establishment), Bihar School Examination Board (Higher Secondary) Bihar, Patna 5.The Director, (Educational), Bihar School Examination Board (Higher Secondary), Budh Marg, Patna ……………. Respondents ----------- 3. 10/12/2010 Annexure-10 is the Newspaper notice published by the Bihar School Examination Board dated 24.7.2009. It shows that the Colleges, which intended to get seats of students increased in their Colleges for 2009-11 Sessions, had to apply in a particular proforma with necessary informations. This notice also shows that so far permitted strength of the students are concerned, whatever seats were allowed for the Sessions 2008-10 was allowed for 2009-11 Sessions also. From Annexure-1, it appears that the College in question was allowed one Section comprising 128 students of Arts faculty in the College for the Sessions 2008- 2 10. Thus, as per the said notice, one Section of 128 Students stands allowed to the College for the Sessions 2009-11 also. From Annexure- 4, it appears that the College had applied for two more Sections of Arts faculty comprising 128 students each in its College for 2009-11 Sessions. The said request of the College appears to have been rejected by the Board vide Annexure-5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of rejection does not disclose as to in what manner the College was deficient to open two further Sections. He submits that all required informations in prescribed proforma have been furnished to the Board by Annexure-4. He submits that the Board was required to consider the informations supplied by the College for permitting the College to open two more Sections. If the College was found deficient on any count, the College ought to have been informed so that the College Management could have removed those deficiencies. This has not been done by the Board. Mr.Alam, learned counsel appearing for the Board submits that so far one Section of 3 128 students are concerned, College already stands permitted by the said Newspaper notice, as contained in Annexure-10. For opening of further two Sections of 128 students each, the College management should contact the Board and furnish further informations to the Board as may be required to enable it to consider the request for permission for opening two more Sections of Arts faculty. Considering the stand of the parties, this Court directs the petitioner, who is the Principal of the College, or the Secretary of its Managing Committee to approach the Board within two weeks, upon which, he shall be informed by the Board with regard to any deficiency in the infrastructure of the College which is coming in its way in getting permission for opening two more Sections. After receiving the information if the College removes those deficiencies within two weeks, the Board shall consider granting permission to the College for opening two more Sections for the Sessions 2009-11. In view of the stand of the parties and in view of the Newspaper notice, as contained 4 in Annexure-10, necessary permission and OMR Certificate shall be issued to the College for one Section of 128 students for the Sessions 2009-11 immediately. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)