IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.269 of 2010 1. AMAN KUMAR S/O BINOD KUMAR SINGH R/O VILL- JAMALPUR BIGHA, P.S. ATHMALGOLA, DISTT. PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH DIRECTOR STATE BOARD OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, BIHAR, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY STATE BOARD OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, TECHNOLOGY BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA, BIHAR 3. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION STATE BOARD OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, TECHNOLOGY BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA, BIHAR ----------- 2/ 18/01/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is stated to be a student of Government Polytechnic Institute, Guljarbagh for the Session 2008-2011, and claims to have appeared at the first semester diploma in Civil Engineering examination held in the year 2009. On 7.9.2009 he is stated to have appeared in the paper of Physics, when his answer sheet was taken away by the Invigilator on the allegation that he was using unfairmeans. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he was given a show cause notice on 27.10.2009 to which he claims to have duly replied on 6.11.2009. The cross list of marks obtained for the said examination shows him as a candidate who had used unfairmeans and, therefore, does not declare his result vide Annexure-4. The submission, therefore, is that the Respondents were required to communicate a reasoned and speaking order to him with their findings on their show cause 2 notice given to the petitioner and the cause shown by him without which his results cannot be withheld. Learned counsel for the State has fairly acknowledged that the Respondents were obliged to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the cause that has been shown by the petitioner. If the respondents have withheld the results of the petitioner in pursuance of the cause shown by him, there arises a presumption of a reasoned and considered order already passed by the Respondents, even if it be available in their file. Let the petitioner appear before Respondent no. 3 forthwith with a copy of the present order. Simultaneous to the appearance of the petitioner, Respondent no. 3 is obliged in continuity to hand over a copy of the reasons why the petitioner was debarred. This Court considers it proper not to grant Respondent no. 3 any latitude for the purpose as it proceeds on the assumption that the Respondents had applied their mind by a reasoned and considered order before debarring the petitioner. If Respondent no. 3 is unable to hand over any reasoned and considered order, when the petitioner appears before him, there shall be a presumption that the respondents have not applied their mind to the cause shown by the petitioner 3 rendering their actions arbitrary when Respondent no. 3 is obliged to declare the result of the petitioner. If a reasoned and considered order has been passed and is communicated to the petitioner, it shall be open for him to assail the same in accordance with law. The writ application stands disposed. AKS/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)