IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.156 of 2010 1. Kant Lal Choudhary S/O Sri Muni Lal Choudhary R/O Vill- Dhouni, P.S- Rajoun, Distt- Banka Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Science And Technology Deptt. Govt.Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director, State Technical Education Board, Science Technology Deptt. Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 4. The Principal, Govt. Polytechnic, Bhagalpur 5. The Controller Of Examination State Board Of Technical Education, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna ----------- 3. 30.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State, who also represents the Principal, Government Polytechnic (hereinafter referred to as „the Polytechnic‟), Bhagalpur and the Controller of Examination State Board of Technical Education, Government of Bihar (hereinafter referred to as the „Examination Board‟). The petitioner desires the publication /release of his 3rd year mark sheet as also the certificate for completion of the three year course of Diploma in Civil Engineering attended by him at the Polytechnic. The third year examination during the Session 1989-90 was held in April, 1991. His second year mark sheet is stated to have been furnished to him in the year 1995. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was admitted in the course during the Session 1984-85. He has passed the first and 2 second year examination of the course and has also passed the third year examination but his result has not been published. The representations evoked no response till he received a communication dated 4.7.2008 declining publication of the result for reasons mentioned therein. C.W.J.C. No. 2262 of 2008 was disposed with directions to consider his representation leading to the impugned order dated 16.10.2009 declining to publish his results. Learned counsel for the Examination Board from the counter affidavit as also the original records with him submitted that the petitioner had obtained admission by impersonation. The photograph of the candidate has been changed in the admission form and the signature in the admission form also varied which has been confirmed by a forensic report. The results of those cleared by forensic reports have been published. The petitioner did not pursue matters till he addressed a letter dated 25.7.2007 to the Polytechnic for publication of his result. In that also he himself acknowledged that he had not discharged his obligations fully as certain papers were still required to be submitted by him. It was next submitted that reminders had been sent to the Polytechnic on 3 9.2.1995 and 15.1.2003 asking for necessary information and materials from the concerned students notwithstanding which nothing was received from the petitioner. Referring to the impugned order dated 16.10.2009 he submits that at such a belated stage of time nearly 25 years later, this Court may not give direction for consideration and publication of the results as the matter had become stale and the petitioner must bear a part of the blame also. The Court cannot loose sight of the fact that the petitioner has pursued a technical course, a diploma in Civil Engineering. The course is said to have been completed. Had the admission been cancelled during the pendency of the course for any reason including an alleged impersonation, the matter would have been entirely different. But once the course has been completed, the petitioner has passed the first and second year and also appeared at the 3rd year examination and claims to have passed, the considerations shall be entirely different. Even if this Court were to accept today the contention of the respondent Examination Board that admission was secured by impersonation, it does not detract from the factual position for the 4 completion of the course. It is not the case of the respondent Examination Board or the Polytechnic that the petitioner was ineligible for admission as he did not possess the requisite qualification for admission to the course of diploma in civil engineering. On the own showing of the Examination Board, notices were issued to the Polytechnic requiring it to in turn notice the petitioner with regard to the deficiencies in his admission. At no point of time was any direct notice issued to the petitioner before arriving at a final conclusion of alleged impersonation against him and the conclusion to withhold his result. The petitioner has brought on record as Annexure-5 the communication dated 1.8.2009 by which the Polytechnic declines receipt of the communications dated 9.2.1995 and 15.1.2003 from the Examination Board. However the Court does not consider it necessary to go into those allegations and counter allegations. In (1976) 1 SCC 311 (Shri Krishnan v. Kurukshetra University) considering a claim for publication of results denied on grounds of ineligibility for admission it was held at paragraph 7 5 as follows :- “7…….In the instant case the admission form of the appellant must have been forwarded in December 1971 whereas the examination was to take place in Apri1/May 1972. It is obvious that during this period of four to five months it was the duty of the university authorities to scrutinise the form in order to find out whether it was in order. Equally it was the duty of the Head of the Department of Law before submitting the form to the university to see that the form complied with all the requirements of law. If neither the Head of the Department nor the university authorities took care to scrutinise the admission form, then the question of the appellant committing a fraud did not arise. It is well settled that where a person on whom fraud is committed is in a position to discover the truth by due diligence, fraud is not proved. ………There was ample time and opportunity for the university authorities to have found out the defect. In these circumstances, therefore, if the university authorities acquiesced in the infirmities which the admission form contained and allowed the appellant to appear in Part I examination in April 1972, then by force of the university statute the university had no power to withdraw the candidature of the appellant……We find ourselves in complete agreement with the reasons given by the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the view of law taken by the learned Judges. In these circumstances, therefore, once the appellant was allowed to appear at the examination in May 1973, the respondent had no jurisdiction to cancel his candidature for that examination. This was not a case where on the undertaking given by a candidate for fulfilment of a specified 6 condition a provisional admission was given by the university to appear at the examination which could be withdrawn at any moment on the non-fulfilment of the aforesaid condition.” The question again came up for consideration in (2009) 1 SCC 610 (Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal)when it was held at paragraph 19 as follows :-: “19….He has, however, also been permitted to continue the course and has completed the course in 2007. He has succeeded before the High Court. Now after four years, if it is to be held that he is not entitled to admission, four years of his career will be irretrievably lost. In the circumstances, it will be unfair and unjust to deny the first respondent the benefit of admission which was initially accepted and recognised by the appellant University.” Coming to the aspect of delay, it is not an inflexible rule that a writ petition must be outright rejected on the ground of delay. It is more a matter for exercise of discretion by the Court in accordance with law. It is a self imposed restriction in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The discretion shall therefore necessarily be variable depending on the facts of the case. If because of the delay, certain developments have taken place and reversing that situation may pose great difficulty and may not be 7 possible delay may be relevant. If third party rights have accrued in the meantime delay will be relevant. The Supreme Court in (2009) 6 SCC 791 (Basanti Prasad v. Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board) has held at paragraph 18 as follows:- “18. In the normal course, we would not have taken exception to the order passed by the High Court. They are justified in saying that a delinquent employee should not be permitted to revive the stale claim and the High Court in exercise of its discretion would not ordinarily assist the tardy and indolent person. This is the traditional view and is well supported by a plethora of decisions of this Court. This Court also has taken the view that there is no inviolable rule, that, whenever there is delay the Court must refuse to entertain a petition...” In the present case, the matter concerns academics and the career of a student. No useful purpose is going to be served by declining publication of his result in accordance with law only on the ground of delay. In fact all, the petitioner, the institution and the society stand to loose the entire effort put in by way of finance and labour by the parties. The society shall also loose out the services of the petitioner as qualified person. The impugned order dated 16.10.2009 simply states that 25 years later no reconsideration could be done. Learned 8 counsel for the Board was possessed of the original records and made submissions from the same during the course of the proceedings. The order dated 16.10.2009 is set aside. Needless to state that if the petitioner is required to perform certain obligations and furnish any required information before his result can be published, the Examination Board is obliged to inform him of the same no sooner that he appears before it with a copy of the present order. Directions are issued to the Principal of Polytechnic at Bhagalpur that if the examination Board calls for any information or the petitioner informs the Principal that the Board has asked for any information, it shall be the duty of the Principal under the order of the Court to forthwith furnish information to the Examination Board. Let the result of the petitioner be published in accordance with law within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)