IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16328 of 2009 1. RAVINDRA CHAUDHARY S/O SRI SITARAM CHAUDHARY R/OVILL SARAIYA, P.O. SARASI, P.S.BAKHATIYARPUR, DISTT- PATNA Versus 1. THE BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD(SENIOR SECONDARY) THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN BUDHA MARG, PATNA-1 2. THE SECRETARY BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD(SENIOR SECONDARY) BUDHA MARG, PATNA-1 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD(SENIOR SECONDARY) BUDHA MARG, PATNA-1 ----------- 2/ 08/01/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The issue for consideration in this writ application is the Intermediate examination result of the petitioner stated to have been cleared by him in 1992. A verification of the same was done on 23.9.1995 at the request of his employer, the Department of Posts, from the Bihar Intermediate Education Council (hereinafter called ‘the Council’) which confirmed that the petitioner has passed the examination in Ist Division. The original certificate was then issued by the Council on 20.9.2007. In the intervening period in pursuance of a second verification from the Council on 31.5.2007, 15 years after he passed the examination it was now informed by the Council that the petitioner has, in fact, passed in 3rd division and that his earlier marks sheet was forged. The petitioner came to this Court in CWJC No. 17318 of 2009. The Respondents in the counter affidavit stood by the allegation of forgery. 2 This Court noticing its limitation in the matter in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution remanded the matter to the Bihar Intermediate Education Council requiring it to re- determine the matter in light of its own enquiry report of 1995 and the issuance of the original certificate on 20.9.2007. It was also noticed that the matter was serious, career of the petitioner and his employment was at stake. Notwithstanding these issues, the Council, a body run by educated persons, had passed ex parte order without any notice to the petitioner or considering his explanation, if any. Setting aside the order dated 31.5.2007, this Court directed the Secretary of the Bihar School Examination Board (Higher Secondary), the successor body to the Council, to furnish to the petitioner the materials on which the Board urges that his marks sheet is fake. In pursuance thereof the impugned order dated 18.8.2009 has been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no materials were furnished to the petitioner to demonstrate the alleged fakeness of the certificate issued on 31.5.2007. The impugned order only refers to the secondary evidence with regard to entries in the cross list and the issue register. There is no 3 consideration or discussion of the earlier report issued confirming the certificate in 1995 and the original certificate issued on 20.9.2007. Counsel for the Board submitted that this Court had not directed to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner which has been done. The order is based on verification of records. There may have been an error in non-consideration of the earlier confirmatory report and the correctness of the certificate in 1995 and September, 2007, but that shall not vitiate the impugned order which is otherwise well considered and reasoned. An administrative order, affecting a citizen, visiting him with adverse consequences is not only required to be reasoned but is also required to take into consideration and deal with all relevant materials. This duty becomes more onerous when these grounds find reference in the order of the Court and in pursuance of which such re-consideration by the authority is directed. An administrative order which does not take into consideration and refuses to deal with the relevant materials is per se arbitrary and not sustainable in law. The need to take into consideration relevant materials ignoring irrelevant materials now stands established as an essential facet of the principles of natural justice and 4 reasonableness of administrative orders. The impugned order does not deal with and consider the earlier confirmatory report of the Bihar Intermediate Education Council, the predecessor body of the Board and whose action continues to bind the successor Board, that the certificate of the petitioner that he had passed in Ist Division was genuine. Similarly, it does not deal with, discuss and negate the original certificate bearing no. 41865 issued by the Council on 20.9.2007. The cross list and the tabulation register are secondary evidence. Entries therein are made from the primary evidence i.e. the answer sheets. The authority passing the impugned order has acted arbitrarily in basing his findings on secondary evidence without any discussion on the primary evidence. If there was forgery as alleged, surely there were two players. The person who committed forgery and the person who was benefited by the forgery. Both are equally answerable administratively and penaly. If the certificate of the petitioner is to be pronounced to be fake 17 years later, reasonableness, fairness and impartiality on the part of the Respondents require them to also deal with and identify the delinquent who issued such fake certificate and institute a first information report against such person simultaneously. 5 The Respondents obviously prefer to ignore the same raising serious question of their bonafide. This Court holds that the impugned dated 18.8.2009 is, therefore, arbitrary and completely not sustainable in law. It is, accordingly, set aside. The writ application stands allowed. AKS/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)