IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11722 of 2008 KUMAR ASHUTOSH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 3/ 18/9/2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the B.C.E.C.E. The petitioner was a candidate at the B.C.E.C.E. examination, 2008 in the Scheduled Caste category. Having qualified he was called for counseling. It is his case that during counseling he was allotted the M.B.B.S. course at the P.M.C.H., Patna. At the time of counseling certain doubts arose when the authorities were of the opinion that the writing of the candidate as at the time of the written examination and as at the time of counseling varied. An endorsement was made at the time of counseling of it being doubtful. The writ application at paragraph-15 states that the petitioner has been denied admission on the basis of this counseling without any opportunity of hearing. It is therefore suggestive that only on the basis of word “doubtful” recorded on the passage, he was asked to write during counseling following which admission has been denied. It has - 2 - additionally been urged that without verification from the observer at the time of the written examination there was no basis for doubting the candidature of the petitioner. What connotation shall have to be given to the words “natural justice” shall depend on the facts and circumstances and the factual scenario existing in each case. There is no uniform application of the words “principles of natural justice”. What the petitioner has not stated in the writ application, as is clear from the counter affidavit, is that after the word “doubtful” was recorded on the sheet where he was asked to again write another passage at the time of counseling for verification of the candidature by comparison of the handwriting on the same day. The petitioner did so but failed to satisfy. Therefore, it cannot be said that the authorities have acted unreasonably without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. That the authorities were prudent enough for a re- verification with regard to what was earlier considered only a doubt. This is what natural justice required in the facts of the present case. The petitioner has chosen to suppress - 3 - this vital fact in the writ petition filed thereafter. Even on the second issue of cross- verification from the observer, all that is required is to quote the following passage from the report recorded on the sheet after the petitioner was asked to write a second time on the date of counseling. “Videography of the candidate was also seen on the computer. The candidate present in the examination hall is different from the candidate appearing in the counseling”. The matter now goes beyond the purview of a writ court and enters the arena of disputed facts. An F.I.R. is also stated to have been lodged against the petitioner. Any observation made and the order passed in the present proceedings shall have no effect on the F.I.R. which shall proceed and reach its own conclusions, in accordance with law. The writ application is dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J )