IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2949 of 2009 1. RICHA JAISWAL, D/o Raj Kumar Jaiswal, resident of Mohalla Choti Patan Devi, P.S. Chauk Patna City, District Patna 2. Raj Kumar Jaiswal, resident of Mohalla Choti Patan Devi, P.S. Chauk Patna City, District Patna Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, through the Secretary, Ministry Human Resources Development Department, New Delhi 2. The Director, National Institute of Open Schooling, B- 31B, Kailash Colony, New Delhi 3. The Regional Director, National Institute of Open Schooling, Lalit Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna 4. The Co-ordinator, National Open School, St. Michael’s School, Digha Ghat Patna. A Franchisee Unit of Respondent no.2 ----------- 05/ 13.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner no.2 is the father of petitioner no.1, who has been admitted in Plus Two Senior Secondary course conducted by the National Institute of Open Schooling for the Session 2007- 08, as is evident from her Identity Card, Annexure-2. 3. It is submitted on behalf of petitioner no.1 that having completed 1st year course, she appeared in two of the papers i.e. Computer and English for which examination was held at Sainik School, Danapur Cantt. Her result, however, was not published, but she continued her studies. Now, she is not being permitted to appear in the final second year examination, although she submitted her form and examination fee of Rs. 630/- and practical examination fee of Rs. 300/-, as would appear from the receipt dated 30.12.2008 and 30.1.2009, Annexure-3. 4. With reference to the counter affidavit and the Prospectus appended therewith, learned counsel for the National Institute of Open Schooling submits that petitioner no.1 was born 2 on 1.1.1993, as would appear from her Identity Card, Annexure-2 and she was under age on the date of her admission. In the light of the stipulation made in the prospectus, her admission is required to be cancelled. 5. When aforesaid submission was made, this Court called upon the learned counsel for the National Institute of Open Schooling to produce the order, whereunder admission of the petitioner no.1 has been cancelled. Learned counsel in response to such query of the Court, fairly conceded that there is no order cancelling the admission of petitioner no.1. 6. It appears, the authorities of the National Institute of Open Schooling with the open eyes, admitted petitioner no.1 and allowed her to prosecute studies as also permitted her to appear in the first year examination, in the circumstances, I do not see any justification in withholding her result of the first year examination as also for not permitting her to appear in the subsequent examination. 7. Accordingly, I direct the Authorities of the National Institute of Open Schooling to not only declare result of petitioner no.1 for first year, but also to allow her to appear in the subsequent Part II examination, which is scheduled to be held in October- November, 2009. 8. This writ application is, accordingly, allowed. AFR Arjun/ ( V.N. Sinha, J.)