IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4821 of 2006 1. Pinki Kumari daughter of Dr. Prof. Indradeo Singh, M.I.G. Quarter No. 7, Hanuman Nagar, Near Water Tower, Kankarbagh, Patna-20. 2. Khyati Verma daughter of Sri. Binod Kumar Verma, resident of Mohalla-Bhagalpur, P.O.-Ara, P.S.-Ara Town, District-Bhojpur ……….Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Veer Kunwar Singh University through its Vice Chancellor, V.K.S.U., Ara 3. Vice-Chancellor, Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara 4. Registrar, Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara 5. The Examination Controller, Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara 6. The Centre-Superintendent of Examination, I.I.S.M. College, Ara presently posted as Professor of Economics Department in Mahadeva Giri College, Ara. 7. Head of Department of Chemistry, Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara. ……..Respondents ----------- For the petitioners : Prem Nath Singh, Advocate : Binay Kumar Singh, Advocate 08. 04.02.2009 The petitioners had appeared in M.Sc. Chemistry examination, 2003 on 31.08.2005. When her results were declared even though she secured overall first division and was declared pass as such no marks for paper 14 Chemistry was given. She made representation and thereafter the University after enquiry permitted the petitioner to appear in Chemistry paper 14 in immediately next ensuing examination. Petitioner has challenged this order of University and says that she is not ready to take examination again. The stand of the petitioner is that the petitioner appeared in the examination and for various reasons University has lost - 2 - her Answer Book. While admitting that the Answer Book has been lost still petitioner wants the result of that paper to be declared which is impossible. It is well settled that futile writs are not issued. A counter affidavit has been filed by the University in which the report of the Centre Superintendent which is annexed with the Answer Books when they are collected and sent to the University for evaluation is Annexure-F that gives the roll numbers of the students who had appeared for paper 14. Petitioners Roll Number is not to be found there. University’s consistent stand is that petitioners absented themselves and it is because of that, there is no record of the petitioners appearing in that paper on that day though they may have appeared in other papers. On behalf of University it is stated that considering these, University granted permission to the petitioners to appear in the next ensuing examination which she has refused. In my view, in view of the fact stated above, writ petition can not be entertained and is dismissed accordingly. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh)