IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10965 of 2006 1. RABINDRA PRASAD SINGH, SON OF SSHRI GANESH PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA – MURLIGANJ, POLICE STATION MURLIGANJ, DISTRICT – MADHEPURA. 2. SADHNA KUMARI, DAUGHTER OF KAMLESHWARI PRASAD MANDAL, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA – MADHEPURA, POLICE STATION – MADHEPURA, DISTRICT – MADHEPURA. 3. RAM CHANDRA KUMAR, SON OF DAILU YADAV, RESIDENT OF MADHEPURA, SAHUGARH, POLICE STATION – MADHEPURA, DISTRICT – MADHEPURA. 4. MADAN KUMAR, SON OF SATYANARAYAN PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MURLIGANJ, POLICE STATION – MURLIGANJ, DISTRICT – MADHEPURA. ……….. PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, ART, CULTURE AND YOUTH AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIATE BUILDING, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA -1. 2. THE JOINT SECRETARY, ART, CULTURE AND YOUGH AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIATE BUILDING, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA -1. 3. THE DIRECTOR, ART, CULTURE AND YOUGH AFFIARS DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIATE BUIDLING, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA -1. 4. THE BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, PATNA -17. 5. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD, PATNA -17. 6. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD, PATNA -17. 7. THE PRINCIPAL, KOSHI PHYSICAL TRAINING COLLEGE, MADHEPURA, POLICE STATION – MADHEPURA, DISTRICT – MADHEPURA. …………. RESPONDENTS. FOR THE PETITIONERS : - MR. BASANT KUMAR CHOUDHARY, SR. ADV. MR. RANJAN KUMAR SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR THE B.S.E.B. : - MR. PARTHA SARTHY, ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE : - MISS JUHI KUMARI, ACT TO AAG 13. ----------- 06/ 14.02.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel appearing for the State as well as Bihar School Examination Board. Prayer of the petitioners, who claim to be the students of Koshi Physical Training College, Madhepura, is for a direction to Bihar School Examination Board to accept their fees and forms and allow them to appear in 2 ensuing examination/special examination of Certificate of Physical Education and Diploma in Physical Examination, as the institution, of which petitioners are claiming to be students, had temporary affiliation for Sessions 1985-86, 88-89. Petitioners’ case is that they were genuine students of this institution during the period when it had valid affiliation. They appeared in the examination conducted by Bihar School Examination Board in the year, 1995-96 but unfortunately could not pass. Some of the students could not deposit their fees and forms as such were not allowed to participate in the examination. Subsequently, despite the fact that there was no affiliation/recognition to the Institution, some of similarly situated students, filed CWJC No. 9988 of 2002 for allowing them to appear in the Examination, on the ground that they were students of the same Sessions, for which there was recognition to the Institution. In case they would not be allowed to appear in the examination, their entire career will be ruined. The High Court issued a direction to examine the genuineness of those students, and being satisfied on verification, the Inspection 3 Committee may recommend such students for appearing in the examination. Some of the students due to such direction of High Court appeared in the examination conducted in the year, 2006, but so far petitioners are concerned, they were left and not allowed to appear in the examination. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Bihar School Examination Board as well as State of Bihar. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of State it has been stated that some of the persons, claiming to be students, with similar facts had filed CWJC No. 6335 of 2006, which was dismissed by order dated 22.9.2006, holding that the statute do not authorize the Board to accept sponsorship from a non-recognized institution. Since, it is not permissible to accept fees and forms of such students under the statute, it cannot be done in a fraudulent manner by the officers of the Board and the sponsoring institution. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Bihar School Examination, it has been stated that earlier in the year, 1995 the examination of the students of the concerned college was conducted for the Sessions 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88. As per the 4 direction of the High Court passed in the writ application, again students were allowed to appear in the examination, in the year, 2006 and results were also published. So far present petitioners are concerned, they cannot be allowed to appear in the examination through an institution, having no affiliation/recognition. Counsel for the petitioners had placed reliance on a decision reported in 2007(10) SCC, 105 in order to show that in the similar facts and the circumstance of the case, the Supreme Court had issued direction for holding examination of students of such an institution, which did not have any affiliation/recognition. On perusal of the judgment, I find that in that case, facts of the case were different. The Bihar School Examination Board had not been able to conduct examination of the students for some Session, despite the direction of the State Govt. even though there was affiliation to the institution. Considering the injustice done to the students, in the particular facts of that case, a direction had been issued. Fact of present case is completely different. There was no apparent reasons for the students not to appear in the examination when they 5 were allowed to appear in the examination. Subsequently in the year, 2006 also, opportunity had been provided to the students by issuing direction in the writ application, to appear in the examination. Students, who have failed or students, whose fees and forms could not be accepted due to some obvious reason, now could not be allowed to appear in the examination after more than 11 years, of expiry of recognition of the institution. I do not find any merit in this application. It is dismissed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)