IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17424 of 2008 DAYA SHANKAR . Versus BIHAR SCHOOL EXAM.BOARD & ORS . ----------- 4. 27.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is sated to be a student of the Central Sharirik Shaikshik Prashaikshan Parishad, Sitamarhi in the C.P.Ed. course for the Session 1984-85 when the institution is stated to have held valid recognition. He appeared at the examination in 1994. His results have not been published. Counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon an order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 12408 of 2008 wherein after hearing the respondent Board directions have been issued for publication of results for the Sessions 1981-82 to 1986-87 noticing that the results for the Session 1987-88 had been published. He further relies upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2010(2) PLJR 52 (SC) (Zakir Hussain Primary Teachers Education College Vs. State of Bihar) setting aside the order dismissing a writ petition as also the appellate order declining direction for publication of results of the academic 2 Session commenced from 1984-86 on the ground of delay when the matter has been remanded to this Court. Learned counsel for the Board submits that the issue is very old and documents may not be available. The candidates were allowed to appear provisionally and their candidature was not verified due to paucity of time and subject to verification as per the undertaking given by the Director of the institution. Reliance is also placed on a Division Bench order of this Court in L.P.A. No. 431 of 2005 dismissing a similar belated plea for publication of results after 14 years. On the own contentions of the petitioner after giving the examination in 1994 he took no steps whatsoever for the publication of his results till I.A. No. 1074 of 2008 was filed by him fourteen years later in C.W.J.C. No. 8188 of 2007, instituted by certain others for publication of results notwithstanding the fact that his representation had been rejected as far back on 18.8.2000. It is not clear from the order in C.W.J.C. No. 11785 of 2006 if it pertains to the same institution or not. Be that as it may, the petitioner contends that his I.A. application was disposed off with liberty to file a separate writ application which he has now done. 3 The reliance on the case of Zakir Hussain (supra) by the petitioner appears misconceived as it appears to have been fundamentally different on facts. The exam had been held, the results were not being published as recognition was pending which came to be disposed subsequently belatedly. That distinguishes it from the present case. This Court was therefore inclined to follow the Division Bench order in L.P.A. No. 431 of 2005 to dismiss the application on the ground of delay, the issue having been raised for an exam held in 1994, the representation rejected in 2000 and an I.A. application filed for the first time in the year 2008 nearly 14 years after the examinations were held. There is no explanation in the writ petition as to why the petitioner chose to keep silent from 1994 till 2000 when his representation was rejected and again why he chose to keep silent for another 8 years before filing the I.A. application in the writ petition. However, in view of the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12408 of 2008 on 12.11.2008 with regard to the Sessions 1981-82 to 1986-87, this Court refrains from dismissing the writ application on grounds of delay as the aforesaid orders relate to the same institution from which the petitioner completed 4 his course. At the same time, the Court cannot very lightly brush aside the objections raised on behalf of the respondent Board with regard to the permission to appear having been provisional in nature subject to verification of candidates and non-availability of documents stated to have been destroyed during floods. If documents are not available, due to passage of time and not only verification of the candidature but even the result is found to be difficult to be published, the petitioner has to equally share the blame on account of laxity and delay. This Court therefore declines to issue a mandamus to the respondent Board for publication of the results, but only observes that subject to availability of documents and feasibility of procuring old records and verification of the candidature etc., let the publication of the results be considered and appropriately acted upon within a maximum period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)