IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11609 of 2010 1. VIJAY YADAV S/O LATE SRI MAHENDRA SINGH YADAV R/O 234-235, P-3, SULTANPURI, DELHI, AT PRESENT - S.K. NAGAR, MOTIHARI, EAST CHAMPARAN 2. ARUN PRAKASH GIRI S/O SRI SARDANAND GIRI GOVINDGANJ, NAVADA, EAST CHAMPARAN 3. NIRAJ KUMAR S/O SRI SATENDRA SINGH R/O VILL.- INARWA PHULWAR, P.S.- LAKHORA, EAST CHAMPARAN 4. SHIVANI KUMARI D/O SRI PROF. S.N. SHARMA AGARVA MOTIHARI, EAST CHAMPARAN 5. SURBHI SUMAN W/O KUMAR MANISH C/O JEEVANDEEP HOSPITAL, NAGAROAD RAXAUL, EAST CHAMPARAN 6. DINESH KUMAR S/O SRI MADAN LAL JOSHI R/O VILL.- THALAH TAHSIL- NANGAL, DISTT.- ROPAR PUNJAB 7. BIRBAHADUR KUMAR TIWARY S/O SRI MAHARSHI SHIVANAND AYURVEDA SEVA ASHRAM & JAYOTISH ANUSANDHAN KENDRA, NAYATOLA KUCHAIKOTE, GOPALGANJ 8. MANOJ KUMAR GAUTAM S/O SRI BHUAL PRASAD R/O VILL.- DHEBARUA, DISTT.- SIDDHARTH NAGAR, UTTARPRADESH, AT PRESENT MOHALLA- CHATTAUNI, P.S.- CHATTAUNI, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (MEDICAL EDUCATION AND INDIAN SYSTEM OF MEDICINE), GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. THE JOINT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 4. THE UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 5. THE DIRECTOR, INDIGENOUS MEDICAL OFFICER EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI 6. THE DISTRICT INDIGENOUS MEDICAL OFFICER EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI 7. THE PRINCIPAL, R.N. MUKHERJEE, AYURVEDA COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL MOTIHARI, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN 8. THE REGISTRAR, B.S.B.R.A BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR 9. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, B.S.B.R.A. BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR 10. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION, B.S.B.R.A. BIHAR UNIVERSITY, MUZAFFARPUR 11. RAVINDRA NATH MUKHERJEE AURVEDA CHIKITSA MAHAVIDYALAYA THROUGH ITS MANAGING COMMITTEE 12. CENTRAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN MEDICINE, NEW DELHI ----------- 2 2. 17.8.2010 At the outset, leave is sought to withdraw the application on behalf of petitioner no. 7. The application is dismissed as withdrawn with regard to him. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. None is present on behalf of the University. The petitioners are stated to be the students of Bachelor in Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (hereinafter referred to as the ‘B.A.M.S.’) in the first year of the course at the R.N. Mukherjee Ayurved College and Hospital, Motihari in the District of East Champaran (hereinafter referred to as ‘the College’). It is submitted that the college continues to be affiliated with the respondent University. Petitioner nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 are students of the Session 2006-2007, petitioner no. 3 is a student of Session 2005-2006, petitioner no. 6 is a student of the Session 2007-2008 and petitioner no. 8 is a student of Session 2004-2005. They are aggrieved by the denial of permission to fill up the forms and fees for their first year final examination. 3 It appears from Annexure-14 to the writ application, that in C.W.J.C. No. 8865 of 2010, this Court noticed that an enquiry had been held by the Hon’ble Chancellor with regard to the genuine students granted admission for the Session 2007- 2008 with regard to the permissible intake capacity. 34 persons were identified as genuine students against an intake capacity of forty. This Court, therefore, permitted those identified as genuine students by the Hon’ble Chancellor to appear in the examination. If, as is contended on behalf of the petitioner no. 6, he is one of the 34 students who finds mention in the report of the Hon’ble Chancellor, he is naturally entitled to similar relief subject to the verification of his assertion by the College and the University. In so far as the others for different sessions are concerned, in the nature of the materials on record with regard to allegations of admission beyond the intake capacity and of fictitious persons, this Court requests the Hon’ble Chancellor to direct similar enquiry for identification of the genuine students. This Court leaves it open to the Hon’ble Chancellor to examine issues with regard to any 4 delay on part of a claimant in having approached this Court to exclude him from such enquiry. It goes without saying that if an examination was held in time according to the calendar for the Session 2004-2005 and petitioner no. 8 did not participate, was prevented from participating, but did not raise any grievance, the Hon’ble Chancellor is not obliged to direct any enquiry with regard to him. If the examination for the Session 2004-2005 has been delayed considerably justifying the institution of the writ petition in 2010, this Court requests the Hon’ble Chancellor to keep petitioner no. 8 within the ambit of the enquiry. This Court makes similar observations with regard to petitioner no. 3 for the Session 2005-06 and with regard to petitioner nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 for the Session 2006-2007. The aforesaid observations are considered necessary in view of any directions that the Hon’ble Chancellor may be required to give for holding special examinations, if he so considers proper. This Court requests that such enquiry may be had conducted by the Chancellor as expeditiously as possible at his convenience and 5 appropriate orders be passed as he may consider prudent directing the authority and the University to hold examination/special examination in respect of the genuine students so that their career is not jeopardized for the fault of others. The writ application stands disposed in the aforesaid terms. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)