IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2700 of 2010 1. JAGESHWAR BALESHWAR UCHCHA VIDYALAYA ORAINA, P.S.- MUFASSIL, DISTT.- NAWADAH THROUGH SRI NAWAL KISHORE PRASAD SINGH @ BHUNA SINGH S/O LATE JAGESHWAR SINGH, SECRETARY OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE SAID SCHOOL 2. SRI RAM RATAN SINGH S/O SRI BANWARI SINGH R/O VILL.- NEYA, P.S.- MUFASSIL, DISTT.- NAWADAH PRESENTLY WORKING AS THE HEADMASTER, JAGESHWAR BALESHWAR UCHCHA VIDYALAYA ORAINA, P.S.- MUFASSIL, DISTT.- NAWADAH Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPTT. OF SECONDARY EDUCATION GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER NAWADAH 4. SRI DEVESH KUMAR CHOUDHARY S/O NOT KNOWN SUB-DIVISIONAL EDUCATION OFFICER, NAWADAH 5. BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD, PATNA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY ----------- 02/ 03/03/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the Bihar School Examination Board. Petitoner No.1 is stated to have been established with Government permission as a non- aided institution whose students are permitted to appear through a recognized school. The students of a non-aided institution are required to appear at what is euphemistically called as a ‘sent-up’ examination. Those who clear this examination are then permitted by the Board to appear at the final Matriculation examination. On the date that the Sub-divisional Education Officer carried out an inspection of the examination hall only 55 students were alleged to be appearing. The institution has submitted a list of 229 students who had appeared at the examination and 2 have cleared it. The examination was scheduled to commence at 10.30 a.m. The petitioners acknowledge that at 10.15 a.m. only 55 students were present, but at 10.30 a.m. when the examination commenced all the 229 students came. The counter affidavit of the respondents at Annexure-B contains the spot inspection report that at the time of the inspection the examination was going on. In one room there were 21 students and in another room there were only 34 students. The writ petition appears to be raising serious questions of fact which cannot be gone into in a writ petition. The writ application stands dismissed. KC/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)