IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2722 of 2009 Kumari Ragini @ Ragini Kumari & Anr. Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- For the Petitioners:- Mr. Bankey Bihari Singh, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Shailendra Prasad, Adv. For the Bihar School Examination Board:- Mr. Gi)ejesh Kumar, Adv. For the State:- Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Adv. -------------- 6. 15.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as the „Board‟). The petitioners are stated to have been students of Bhagwan Budha Primary Teachers Training College, Begrahia, Siwan, (hereinafter referred to as the „College‟) during the Sessions 1985-87 and 1986-88. The Board held their examinations in 1991. A controversy with regard to the publication of the results has more than adequately been noticed in a Bench decision of this Court reported in 2006(4) PLJR 311 (Managing Committee of Bhagwan Budh Primary Teacher‟s Education College, Bajrahia Vs. State of Bihar). The Court directed publication of results of all the students who appeared in the examination irrespective of the alleged enrollment limit of 100. In pursuance thereto 2 the Board published the results on 27.8.2006. It was subsequently cancelled on 30.12.2008. C.W.J.C. No. 14155 of 2008 was filed by the petitioners questioning the cancellation. A Bench of this Court on 11.11.2008 after noticing the earlier direction for publication of results observed that “however, the individual case of the examinees was not an issue in that case”. Liberty was granted to the Board to hold enquiry under Regulations 18 and 19 “for the purposes of finding out the true facts and then decide whether the candidature of the petitioners deserves to be canceled or not”. The Board having held such enquiry by order dated 30.12.2008 has arrived at the conclusion that the petitioners were not bona fide students and the cancellation of their result was proper. Counsel for the petitioners emphasizes their results were published under an order of the Court which attained finality. The Board itself had urged that the matter being old records were not available. Thus there could not have been any fair enquiry in absence of records. Under the garb of the order of the Court in C.W.J.C. No. 14155 of 2008 their already published results could not be cancelled on conjectures and surmises. 3 Counsel for the Board submitted that an enquiry had been held in terms of the directions of the Court in which the petitioners were allowed to participate. The question involved was factual in nature. The order dated 30.12.2008 is reasoned that the petitioners had failed to satisfy their names found place in the admission register and the register of selected candidates. The petitioners claimed to have resided in the hostel during the course but failed to place materials in support or proof thereof. The Court may not therefore interfere on factual findings. The Board has also filed a counter affidavit. There is no whisper of any suggestion of the manner in which the Board acted after the directions of this Court for publication of the results in the former case. There shall be a presumption under Section 114 (e) of the Evidence Act that the Board had acted in normal course of duties with application of mind to the relevant materials and after satisfaction of both eligibility and identity published the results. If the Board had any reservations in the matter, the proper course for it to follow was to either prefer an appeal against the directions or seek any clarification/modification or 4 review of that order. There had to be finality to the actions of the Board. It cannot act like a stuttering engine which fires then sputters and then fires again. The Board cannot take the defence that it acted mindlessly in publishing the result. The defence that it published the results in the shadow of the fear of an apprehension of a Contempt proceeding is a ludicrous defence which has to be stated to be rejected. The desperate reference to Paragraph-4 of the judgment and the contention that liberty had been granted to scrutinize after publication of the result is completely misconceived. The directions were a pre-condition to the direction for publication. The Board had to be satisfied before making publication. The manner of the defence being taken by the Board in the present case is nothing but an admission by it that it successfully hoodwinked the Court by a sham compliance of the order for publication and then subsequently retracted. The stand of the Board is out rightly contumacious. It obtains an undue advantage and benefit for itself at the cost of the petitioners. It seeks an easy way to protect its own officers leaving the 5 petitioners to bear the brunt. The onus was on the Board to demonstrate that the names of the petitioners did not figure in the admission register or the selection register. The onus shall then shift to the petitioners. A peculiar procedure was adopted by the Board holding that the photocopies of the admission register and the selection register appeared doubtful. It is the duty of the person or authority in possession of the document to place it for proper adjudication. In (1988) 1 SCC 626 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore) it was held at paragraph 10 : - “10…..This Court has consistently emphasised that it is the duty of the party which is in possession of a document which would be helpful in doing justice in the cause to produce the said document and such party should not be permitted to take shelter behind the abstract doctrine of burden of proof. This duty is greater in the case of instrumentalities of the State such as the appellant who are under an obligation to act fairly…….” But it is equally true that the petitioners have suffered the judgment in C.W.J.C. No. 14155 of 6 2008. Once they agreed for a fresh enquiry by accepting the latter judgment and in course of the same took a defence but failed to substantiate collateral proof of having been genuine students for the session residing in the hostel the Court finds it very difficult to grant them relief. But for the same the Court was satisfied that they did have a claim. The writ application is dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)