IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 7042 of 2006 Umesh Kumar Jha, son of Sri Subodh Jha, resident of village – Satlaha, P O – Rahika, District – Madhubani - Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Human Resources, Bihar, Patna 2 Bihar School Examination Board through its Secretary, Sinha Library Road, Patna 3 The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Sinha Library Road, Patna 4 The Headmaster, Prithvi Singh High School, Raghopur, P O – Raghopur, District – Vaishali - Respondents ----------- 4 14.12.2010 The petitioner sat in the High School Examinations conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna, the admit card whereof is Annexure-1. He had appeared through Prithvi Singh High School, Jahangirpur, Block – Raghopur in the district of Vaishali in the year, 1998. He alleges that his results were declared as per cross list sent to the School but when he applied for marksheet, he was told that his results have been withheld. Petitioner, thereafter, moved to Delhi in search of employment and got seriously injured with brain injury there. He, thereafter, applied for the marksheet when necessity arose in the year, 2006 once again and now he is being told that his results have been cancelled. A counter affidavit and a supplementary counter affidavit have been filed by the Examination Board in which it is stated that after results were tabulated, it was found that the registration number, as given by the petitioner while filling up the examination form, did not tally and was as such not correct. Therefore, the results were shown to be withheld. It is then stated that instructions were sought for from Headmaster of the School of the petitioner. Let it be noted that all this started after petitioner 2 had filed the writ petition. The response of the Headmaster is something to be noted. The query of the Board was with regard to registration of the petitioner of the year, 1993 as he had sat in the examination in 1998. The response is with regard to registration of the year, 1998. Headmasters are supposed to be literate. Then we come to what is more shocking and shows clear insensitivity on part of the Board. After the writ petition is filed, they take a stand that in terms of Regulation 19 of Chapter V of the Bihar School Examination Board Regulations 1964, they have now decided to annul the results. Why this Court says that the action is shocking would be evident from the reading of the said Regulation which is quoted hereunder : “In any case where the result of the examination has been ascertained and published and it is found that such result has been affected by error, mal practice, fraud, or any other cause whereby an examinee has in the opinion of the Board been party to or privy to or connived at such mal practice, fraud or improper conduct, Board shall have power at any time, notwithstanding the issue of the certificate to amend the result of such examinee and to make such declaration as it may consider necessary in this behalf.” A reference to the said Regulation would show that in plain and simple if the Board finds mal practice then it can annul the results. The words error or any other cause has to be read ejusdem generis with the words mal practice and fraud which is repeated in the said Regulation. A result cannot be cancelled for some mere error more so in any event without notice to the party and hearing him. It is not a matter to be taken lightly. The High School results can be a matter of survival for a 3 person. This shows total insensitivity of the Board in the matter. The results were kept pending from 1998 till 2006. There is no denial that petitioner sat in the examination and passed in 03rd Division. Once the writ petition is filed in 2006, the Board gives a parting kick to annul the result itself. It must be remembered that Board is not free of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Its officers and employees are supposed to be literate responsible persons who should not act in such arbitrary manner lacking total insensitivity to the issue. If there was a mistake, a solution had to be found. The entire results and connected data are available to the Board on its Computer. If there was some bona fide, it could have traced out the name of the petitioner and the correct registration number from its records. A reference to the admit card would show that the registration number is not clearly written. It was accepted by the Board when the admit card was issued and petitioner was permitted to sit in examination. It could be read as 3696 of 1993 or 5696 of 1993. Be that as it may, there being no denial that the petitioner sat for the examination and passed in 03rd Division, it is only hyper technicality which is ruining the career of the student. The Board, instead of solving a problem, created more problems than necessary. I do not know with what motive. Here, I may refer to what Apex Court noted in the case of Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilisers Limited –Versus- Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and others since reported in AIR 1992 Supreme Court 152. “… … … The answer to this is in the words of Lord Denning : “Now I know that a public authority cannot be estopped from doing its public duty, but I do think it can be estopped from relying on a technicality and 4 this is a technicality” (see Wells v. Minister of Housing and Local Government, (1967) 1 WLR 1000 at p. 1007). Francis Bennion in his “Statutory Interpretation”, 1984 edition, says at page 683 : “Unnecessary technicality : Modern courts seek to cut down technicalities attendant upon a statutory procedure where these cannot be shown to be necessary to the fulfilment of the purposes of the legislation. … … …” The further insensitivity of the Board is reflected from the plea taken in the counter affidavit that petitioner has delayed in approaching this Court for his marksheet and, as such, the writ petition should be dismissed. In my view, once the Board admits that the petitioner sat for the examination, his marks have been tabulated then petitioner has a right to receive it as and when petitioner requires it. Under the Board’s Regulation, there is no Rule that provides that the marksheet must be taken within a specified period whereafter it cannot be granted. In absence of such a provision when there was need, petitioner applied for the same and not having been given, has approached this Court. This legal engineering and technicality to defeat legitimate claim cannot be understood by this Court. This writ petition is, thus, allowed. Board is directed to issue the correct marksheet to the petitioner within one month from today and in case they failed to do so, they would be liable to further cost of Rs 10,000/- to be paid to the petitioner. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)